[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9874-9887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
resume S. 254, and that the first five amendments previously debated to 
the pending juvenile justice bill now be the pending question in the 
order in which they were offered, with up to 5 minutes for each side 
for additional debate prior to a vote on or in relation to those 
amendments.
  I further ask that following the disposition of debate on each 
amendment, the amendment be laid aside, and at the hour of 3:50 p.m. 
today the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendments in 
the order in which they were offered, with 2 minutes prior to each vote 
for explanation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object 
because the distinguished Senator from Utah and I have been trying to 
move this forward--is the Senator from Vermont correct in understanding 
that we would do 10-minute votes? The 2 minutes is in addition to the 5 
minutes? The reason I ask is that I think the Senator from Utah will 
have to adjust the time of the first vote.
  I want to make sure I understand. Are we talking about 5 minutes on 
each side, but then an additional 2 minutes between the votes, so, in 
effect, 7 minutes on each side?
  Mr. HATCH. The 2 minutes would be after the first vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent request be 
modified only to this extent: The distinguished Senator from Utah gave 
an opening time, and I think, because we had some time slip from when 
this was written, the Chair be allowed to start that initial vote at 
the time the various 5 minutes would run out.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Let me modify my request to make it no 
later than 4 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Lott (for Allard) amendment No. 351, to allow the erecting 
     of an appropriate and constitutional permanent memorial on 
     the campus of any public school to honor students and 
     teachers who have been murdered at the school and to allow 
     students, faculty, and administrative staff of a public 
     school to hold an appropriate and constitutional memorial 
     service on their campus to honor students and teachers who 
     have been murdered at their school.
       Kohl/Hatch/Chafee amendment No. 352, 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.

[[Page 9875]]

       Hatch/Feinstein amendment No. 353, authorizing funds for 
     programs to combat gang violence.
       Byrd/Kohl amendment No. 339, to provide for injunctive 
     relief in Federal district court to enforce State laws 
     relating to the interstate transportation of intoxicating 
     liquor.
       Feinstein modified amendment No. 354, to modify the laws 
     relating to interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors.
       Frist amendment No. 355, 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.
       Wellstone amendment No. 356, to improve the juvenile 
     delinquency prevention challenge grant program.
       Sessions/Inhofe amendment No. 357, relating to the 
     placement of a disclaimer on materials produced, procured or 
     disseminated as a result of funds made available under this 
     Act.
       Wellstone amendment No. 358, to provide for additional 
     mental health and student service providers.
       Sessions (for Ashcroft) amendment No. 348, to encourage 
     States to prosecute violent juveniles as adults for certain 
     offenses involving firearms.
       Wellstone amendment No. 359, to limit the effects of 
     domestic violence on the lives of children.
       Hatch (for Santorum) amendment No. 360, to encourage States 
     to incarcerate individuals convicted of murder, rape, or 
     child molestation.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 361, to provide for school safety 
     and violence prevention and teacher liability protection 
     measures.

  Mr. HATCH. The five amendments that are going to come up in this 
order, and I hope people will not use their 5 minutes, are: the Allard 
amendment on school memorials; the Kohl-Hatch amendment on safety 
trigger locks; the Hatch-Feinstein amendment on gangs; the Byrd 
amendment on interstate transportation of intoxicating liquor; and the 
Feinstein amendment to modify the laws pertaining to interstate 
shipment of liquor.
  Mr. President, why don't we begin with the Kohl-Hatch amendment and 
we will use our 5 minutes.


                           amendment no. 352

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, our amendment is a reasonable, bipartisan 
measure that will help protect children from the countless accidental 
deaths, suicides and violent crimes that result from improperly stored 
handguns. Simply put, it would require that every handgun be sold with 
a child safety device, but leaves the decision about whether to use a 
safety device to individual gun owners. Here's why we believe you 
should support it.
  First, we've added a section that extends limited liability 
protection to gun owners who lock up their handguns properly. This 
liability protection is very narrow--it does not extend any immunity to 
manufacturers, and it does not apply if the gun owner acted 
negligently. We believe that this provision actually improves the bill 
by creating incentives to use child safety locks.
  Second, the American people overwhelmingly support it. According to a 
recent Newsweek poll, 85 percent of the American public backs 
legislation requiring the sale of child safety locks with new handguns.
  Third, despite the pledges of some of the largest manufacturers to 
sell safety locks with every handgun, most manufacturers are still not 
including safety locks. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported, ``only 
a handful of the arms makers who eventually signed on are complying, 
according to industry insiders.''
  Fourth, and most importantly, child safety locks will help save 
lives. Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in gun-
related accidents, thousands are injured, and approximately 1,500 
children and teenagers commit suicide with guns. Perhaps as disturbing, 
nearly 7,000 violent crimes each year are committed by juveniles using 
guns they found in their own homes.
  Just last weekend, a 7-year-old Milwaukee boy named Brian Welch 
killed himself accidentally with a gun he found in his father's drawer. 
What do we say to Brian's family, if we cannot takes steps as 
reasonable as this one?
  You know, Mr. President, in the past few weeks there's been a lot of 
discussion about Republicans and ``gun control.'' Hardly a talk show 
goes by without a pundit opining on whether it's a true epiphany or a 
``poll-driven ploy.'' Well, cynics can believe whatever they want. But 
my sense is that, in the wake of Littleton, both sides have grown up a 
bit: Democrats in acknowledging that culture has something to do with 
juvenile violence today; and Republicans in endorsing reasonable 
measures to take handguns out of the hands of kids who shouldn't have 
them.
  So I applaud all of those on both sides of the aisle who have 
``converted'' on safety locks. I appreciate those who have been with us 
from the beginning, including our cosponsor Senator Chafee, who has 
been so resolute in support of reasonable gun control measures. And I 
credit Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and Senator Craig for their work 
in making this a better amendment. And one that we all believe will 
shortly become law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this child safety device amendment will, 
first, provide qualified immunity to law-abiding gun owners who use a 
trigger lock or gun storage device, and two, it will require the sale 
of a child safety device lock or gun storage device with the sale of 
every handgun sold by a licensee.
  In the past week it has been clear that some on the other side of the 
aisle believe that playing politics is more important than taking 
action. Some--but not all. So I am pleased to say that Senators Kohl, 
Chafee, and I have joined forces to produce a compromise on child 
safety locks that lays aside partisan rhetoric and demonstrates the 
positive steps that can result from putting aside such rhetoric and 
focusing on protecting our children.
  Under the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment, for the first time every 
handgun purchased from a manufacturer, importer, or licensed dealer 
will have to be sold with a storage or child safety lock device.
  This amendment will not change the fundamental principle that 
governmental action cannot be used to micromanage specific methods of 
parental responsibility. We do not expect parents to let their small 
children drive a car or play with matches, and we do not expect them to 
permit their children to have unsupervised access to firearms. This 
amendment will provide parents with a tool to help prevent such access.
  Last year the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to an amendment that 
funded gun safety education by State and local entities. It also 
required gun dealers to stock safety devices. These efforts encouraged 
people to lock up their guns and to act safely and responsibly. This 
amendment is another step in enhancing this successful effort.
  I should add that no child safety lock or gun safe will ever make our 
society safe from gun violence if criminals who use firearms are not 
aggressively prosecuted and punished. No safety device will stop a 
felon, but jail will. So once again I call upon the Attorney General to 
start prosecuting criminals who use guns. Only then will we truly be 
able to create a safer environment for our children.
  This amendment gives law-abiding gun owners the peace of mind of 
knowing their children are protected. Further, it will give law-abiding 
gun owners qualified immunity from civil suit if they use the child 
safety device or child safety lock.
  This amendment is a good idea for gun owners and a good idea for 
children. I am pleased we have bipartisan support in the Senate for 
this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in 
support of the commonsense child safety lock amendment. The amendment 
we had offered last Friday addresses a shameful--and uniquely 
American--tragedy: that of children finding handguns, and accidentally 
causing great harm to themselves or others.
  Most of these terrible shootings occur in the home, when a curious 
youngster finds a parent's loaded handgun in the closet, under the 
couch cushions, or in a bedside table drawer. The child then shoots a 
sibling, a friend, or him- or herself. And all too often the result is 
death, or permanent injury.

[[Page 9876]]

  One of the most tragic examples of children accidentally shooting 
other children occurred last year in Greensboro, North Carolina. A 4-
year-old who was attending the sixth birthday party of a friend, found 
a loaded gun in a purse in the house where the party was taking place. 
The 4-your-old shot and killed the 6-year-old.
  The National Center for Health Statistics tells us that every day in 
America 13 children are shot and killed, and every day at least one of 
those deaths is accidental. Every year in America, approximately 1,500 
children and teens commit suicide with guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms estimates that about 7,000 violent crimes are 
committed by juveniles each year with guns they found in their own 
homes. Today, in few other countries are children so affected by gun 
violence, accidental or otherwise: CDC tells us that the rate of death 
among children under age 15 from guns in this country is 12 times that 
of the other 26 major industrialized nations combined.
  A 1995 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found 
that there is a gun in approximately half of all U.S. households. 
Another 1995 study by the SAFE KIDS Campaign found that 59 percent of 
parents with guns admitted that they don't lock-up their guns.
  The statistics about children who are harmed accidentally by handguns 
are appalling. They are a national shame. And to grieving parents, 
siblings, and friends, they are not just statistics. For them, the loss 
or serious injury of a child is absolutely devastating. Yet these 
accidents are wholly preventable.
  That is why we are taking action today. The child safety lock 
amendment, No. 352, that we are proposing would require that all future 
sales of handguns be accompanied by a locking device--a mechanism that 
prevents the guns from being discharged without a key or combination 
lock.
  Earlier in the debate on S. 254, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to 
approve an amendment offered by Senators Hatch and Leahy that requires 
internet services providers to give parents a tool to filter violent 
material their children could be exposed to on the internet. It was an 
amendment to provide parents with a tool to help keep their children 
safe. The amendment Senator Kohl and I are offering with Senator Hatch 
is identical in its purpose. It is meant to provide parents with a 
tool--the trigger lock for a handgun--to keep their children safe.
  I appreciate the support of the Judiciary Committee chairman and urge 
my colleagues to show the same level of support for this amendment as 
they showed for the internet filtering amendment last week.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, regarding his 
Safe Handgun Storage and Child Handgun Safety Amendment (#352) to S. 
254, the juvenile crime bill.
  The amendment makes it unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, 
importer or dealer to sell, deliver or transfer any handgun to any 
person (other than under certain exceptions) unless the transferee is 
provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. I am interested in 
clarifying the intent of the amendment with regard to gun safety 
devices.
  Senator Kohl, as you know, a company in my home state of Arizona has 
developed a handgun safety device called Saf-T-Hammer. It is a 
removable hammer which can be incorporated into new guns or retrofit 
most handguns now in circulation. When the top of the hammer is 
removed, the gun cannot be fired. Parents can take off the hammerhead 
and carry it with them when they leave home, secure in the knowledge 
that no unauthorized user--including children--will be able to fire the 
gun.
  Because Saf-T-Hammer is a removable safety device, is it your intent, 
Senator Kohl, that Saf-T-Hammer would still qualify as a gun safety 
device for purposes of your amendment?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
question. I am indeed familiar with Saf-T-Hammer and share the 
Senator's enthusiasm for the promise of handgun safety that this device 
offers. I commend the intent of the developers of the device to 
safeguard the lives of innocent children and others who might otherwise 
be killed or injured by handguns.
  I can assure the Senator from Arizona that it is indeed the intention 
of the amendment that devices such as Saf-T-Hammer, an easily removable 
hammer, are included within the purview of the amendment. I also 
believe that on its face the definition of a safety device in 18 U.S.C. 
921(34) would include a device such as Saf-T-Hammer. Accordingly, when 
a handgun is manufactured or retrofitted with Saf-T-Hammer, it would 
be, under the terms of the amendment, exempt from the amendment's 
prohibitions on transfer. Handguns so equipped with a Saf-T-Hammer may 
be freely transferred under the amendment.
  I hope this answers your question and clarifies the legislative 
intent of the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his 
time and clarification of the amendment regarding this important issue.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I just want to be clear about the civil liability 
provisions. Does this bill create civil liability immunity for gun 
manufacturers, dealers of guns accessed in the home, or manufacturers 
or distributors of safety devices?
  Mr. KOHL. No. It creates civil liability immunity only for gun 
owners.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Does this bill create civil liability immunity only for 
gun owners who use a safety device?
  Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Does that immunity apply if the gun owner is negligent--
even if he doesn't actually give anyone permission to use the gun, but 
for example leaves the key to the lock sitting next to the gun?
  Mr. KOHL. No.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And is it correct that this section does not change in 
any way existing product liability law?
  Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And, finally, is it correct that any pending suits 
against gun owners would be allowed to continue?
  Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator once again. On another matter, I want 
to make equally clear for the record exactly what a ``secure gun 
storage or safety device'' is and is not. Specifically, would the 
Senator from Wisconsin agree with me that the definition of such 
devices in our amendment is intended solely to include personalized 
guns, lockable devices which either are affixed to a firearm directly, 
or to secure locked containers or safes.
  Mr. KOHL. I would agree.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, would you further concur with me that our 
definition of a ``secure gun storage or safety device'' is not intended 
to include a permanent feature of a home or motor vehicle, such as a 
closet or glove box, even though such environments also may be locked?
  Mr. KOHL. I would agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin and distinguished Senator from Utah have worked in good faith 
on this amendment. My one concern is that the immunity provision does 
not define the term ``person,'' so it could include not only individual 
gun owners but also dealers, manufacturers, possibly even governments. 
I mention that not to in any way deter this from being agreed to, but I 
say to the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, we will all be on the conference if this bill 
passes. That provision I suggest we may want to define more narrowly in 
a conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment has expired.
  The Senate will move to the next amendment.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 351

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand I have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page 9877]]


  Mr. ALLARD. I will be talking about amendment No. 351, which is the 
Allard amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator will have 2\1/2\ minutes and the other side 
will have 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I stand corrected. I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Basically, there are two parts to this amendment. There is a part 
which we refer to as the ``findings'' part, and another part which 
deals with the actual statutory change.
  The first part, in findings, just says the local school district, 
working with the school board and the administration and the parents 
and the students in a school, if they decide to hold a memorial service 
or to erect a memorial, if they reach a local consensus, there is a 
finding by the Senate and by the Congress that it is OK for them to go 
ahead and do that. It is just a finding. It is not a change in law.
  There is a second part that does deal with statutory changes where 
there is a change in law, and that says if there happens to be a 
lawsuit based on the first amendment or one of the other amendments, 
then on the first amendment it says the school district would pay for 
its own legal expenses and then the litigants would then pay for their 
own; whoever is suing would pay for their own legal expenses.
  The second part of it says the U.S. Attorney General may defend the 
school district in the lawsuit. It is a very straightforward amendment.
  The parents of Cassie Bernall recently contacted me about the 
difficulty they have encountered in establishing a memorial for their 
daughter. This is in relation to the Columbine High School tragedy. To 
quote Cassie's father:

       Our Cassie was the young woman who boldly answered to a 
     gunman ``yes'' when he asked if she believed in God, 
     prompting him to pull the trigger. Cassie's response did not 
     surprise us. . . . It was from her strong faith in [Jesus 
     Christ] and His promise of eternal life that she was 
     empowered to make her stand.
       My wife . . . and I both believe any Columbine incident 
     memorial should memorialize each individual in a personal 
     way. Everyone knows . . . that Cassie was a very strong 
     Christian. To leave this facet of her persona out would be to 
     mis-memorialize her and others.

  Mr. and Mrs. Bernall strongly support the amendment that I am 
proposing today because they have experienced already a threat to their 
first amendment rights.
  I urge the Senate to vote yes for the Allard amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I have been informed that I have 
another 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I am sorry, I misstated.
  Mr. ALLARD. I misunderstood.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I commend Senator Allard for offering this 
amendment that conveys the Senate's heartfelt sympathy to the families 
and friends of all school shootings.
  His amendment allows the families and friends of all victims of 
shootings to grieve and honor the victims at a memorial service held on 
school grounds. This amendment tells these families and friends that 
the Senate believes they have a right to congregate at a memorial 
service on school grounds to mourn the deaths of students and faculty.
  Further, this amendment states that the Senate believes it is 
constitutional for these memorial services to include spiritual 
aspects, including the reading of prayers and scripture and the 
performance of religious music.
  This amendment also states that the Senate believes that an 
appropriate and constitutional permanent memorial can be erected on 
school grounds, a part of which can include religious symbols, motifs, 
or sayings.
  This amendment will, hopefully, ease some of the pain associated with 
preparing memorial services for loved ones killed in any act of school 
violence. I thank the Senator from Colorado for offering this amendment 
and commend him for it.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot think of anything that a parent, a 
community, or a family would want to do more than to join in their 
expressions of grief if a disaster struck.
  In my family, a disaster like Columbine--in fact, it is almost 
impossible to say how one would even get through it. I suspect we would 
gather as a family; we would gather with our community; we would go to 
our church. Expressions are made in schools, of course.
  I do not question the concerns of the distinguished author of this 
amendment, which are heartfelt. I know him as a good and honest man. I 
worry, though, that we set a precedent involving our first amendment.
  Our Constitution says everyone has equal access to the courts to 
assert constitutional rights. This amendment can be read to promote one 
constitutional viewpoint while depriving those who hold the opposing 
viewpoint of their day in court.
  If this becomes law, those who complain of free exercise clause 
violations by public authorities that exclude religious observances 
from public spaces could do so with the benefit of additional fee-
shifting, whereas those who make the opposite claim--that the 
establishment clause has been violated--will be disadvantaged.
  The first amendment's religion clauses are meant to ensure that the 
Government is neutral in matters of religion. It says you can practice 
any religion you want or none if you want, but the Government will 
remain neutral, thus providing the diversity in this Nation of so many 
religions, a diversity which has greatly promoted our democracy.
  This legislation, by offering the Attorney General's assistance to 
those who take one viewpoint, while depriving those who take the 
opposite viewpoint of normal civil rights law remedies, violates this 
most basic principle of neutrality.
  The congressional finding paints with far too broad a brush. It could 
encompass a variety of activities that violate the first amendment.
  While I joined in my own State in gatherings to express condolences 
to those of the tragedy, I have been in memorial services, I have been 
in churches and in synagogues where we have prayed for those who have 
been the victims of tragedies. We have done it knowing that was an 
appropriate place to do it. I have gathered with families in public 
gatherings where we have expressed, within the context we do in a 
public setting, our feelings, and that is appropriate.
  As I said, I do not know how the people, not only Columbine but so 
many communities which have been visited with tragedy, can even get 
through the tragedy. I do not know how a parent in these tragedies 
again, without fear, can ever send their child off to school.
  Let us not, in our unified intent within this body to show our 
sympathy, in any way diminish the protections of our first amendment. 
It is too important to all of us.
  I have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment. I have great 
respect for his honesty and his feelings of sympathy. I have joined 
with other Senators on the floor of the Senate in expressing my 
sympathy. I worry this is overly broadly against the first amendment, 
and because of that, I have to oppose it. I am perfectly willing to 
yield back time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have great sympathy for the motives and 
objectives of the Senator from Colorado in offering this amendment. We 
all want to support the appropriate service and memorial for victims of 
such tragic events. However, I did not support the Allard amendment 
because, in my judgement, it too broadly states a view regarding 
constitutionality under the First Amendment and arbitrarily singles out 
memorials for victims who are slain on the campus of a public school, 
excluding memorial services involving victims of slayings during a 
robbery or other event not on the school's campus

[[Page 9878]]

or victims of a tragic accident, for example. Also, I do not believe 
that the Senate should take the step of authorizing the Attorney 
General to become involved in litigation on one side or the other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have a question to ask of the chairman. 
Is he ready for the yeas and nays on this amendment?
  Mr. HATCH. We are going to vote in a stacked sequence.
  Mr. ALLARD. I will wait for that.
  Mr. HATCH. Why don't we ask for the yeas and nays. I ask unanimous 
consent that the yeas and nays be ordered on all five amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to 
order the yeas and nays? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 353

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the amendment which I offered with the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is a much refined version of 
legislation we offered last Congress to address the serious and 
troubling issues of interstate and juvenile gangs.
  I commend Senator Feinstein for her hard work and dedication to this 
issue.
  Our amendment includes improvements 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 4-year mandatory minimum if the person recruited is a 
minor.
  It amends the Travel Act, of 1952 18 U.S.C., to include typical gang 
predicate offenses.
  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. However, our amendment 
places no duties or restrictions on the sellers of these legitimate 
personal safety products. Our amendment also enhances the availability 
of body armor 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 there 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. 770 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.
  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 
arson 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 fire bombs come 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

[[Page 9879]]

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 out 
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.
  I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I want 
him to know it has been a great pleasure for me to be able to work with 
him on these three issues, and now on the gang bill, for the past 3 
years.
  Mr. President, I think the chairman has very accurately and 
adequately stated what these amendments do. I would like to just 
provide a little bit of filler material with respect to the need. There 
are over 23,000 youth gangs in all 50 States in the United States. I 
think it will come as no surprise for people to learn that California 
is the No. 1 gang State, with almost 5,000 different gangs, more than 
three times as many as the next State. Overall, there are over 600,000 
members of gangs. And they have increased tenfold since 1975.
  This legislation is a direct result of the importuning of many in 
local law enforcement who have come to me and others in this body and 
said: Could the Federal Government give us a hand in fighting gangs?
  In Los Angeles alone, over the past 16 years, 7,300 people were 
murdered from gang warfare--more people than have been killed in all 
the terrorist fighting in Northern Ireland.
  Today, modern gangs are organized. Take, for one, the Bloods and 
Crips, which began in Los Angeles. They now have a presence in 119 
American cities, as you can see on this chart. Take, for instance, 
Chicago's Gangster Disciples, which have expanded into 34 Midwest and 
Southern cities, with a board of directors inside prison and a board of 
directors outside prison.
  These gangs operate very often as modern Mafia-type enterprises. They 
move across State lines. They move drugs. They practice a whole series 
of crimes. And they do so in a very organized way.
  In Los Angeles alone, the 18th Street Gang now deals directly with 
Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. They have expanded their operations 
to Oregon, Utah, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. And it goes on and 
on and on; virtually every ethnic and racial group has some gang that 
is operating in the United States.
  The chairman has accurately stated what this amendment would do. It 
increases sentences for gang members who commit Federal crimes. It 
enhances the ability of Federal prosecutors to prosecute gangs. It 
amends the Travel Act to include some offenses which gangs perpetrate. 
It adds serious juvenile drug offenses to the Armed Career Criminal 
Act. And it provides a 3-year mandatory minimum sentence to knowingly 
transferring a firearm for use in a violent crime or drug trafficking 
crime where the gun is transferred to a minor.
  Let me move now to the second part of it. This has to do with bomb 
making on the Internet. In the Judiciary Committee not too long ago, I 
remember somebody presenting a manual called ``The Terrorist Handbook'' 
that could be pulled up on the Internet. I went back and we downloaded 
it from the Internet.
  What I saw really chilled me, because what I saw was accurate 
information on how to steal chemicals, how to break into chemistry 
labs, what to buy in stores, and how to go home and make pipe bombs, 
telephone bombs, letter bombs, and mailbox bombs. Virtually every use 
in the manual is illegal. And you have to ask, Why?
  The youngsters in Colorado who perpetrated the crime indicated they 
got the formula for the pipe bombs directly from the Internet. It well 
could have been from this very volume I hold up today.
  Since Littleton, CO, there has been a rash of these. Police arrested 
five students in Brooklyn for possessing this manual that they found on 
the Internet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just for one 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will ask to print in the Record a list of counties 
and cities where we have had incidents directly following Littleton: 
Salt Lake; Cobb County in Georgia; Port Aransas, TX; Wichita Falls; 
Wimberley, TX. More than 50 threats of bombs and other acts of violence 
have occurred in the last few weeks since Littleton, CO.
  This amendment essentially says it will become a Federal crime to 
teach or distribute information on how to make a bomb or other weapon 
of mass destruction if the individual intends 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.
  The Justice Department has reviewed the legislation. We believe that 
it is constitutional. The Fourth Circuit has heard a case and has 
effectively declared the methodology herein as constitutional.
  The final part of this bill is the James Guelff Body Armor Act. It 
speeds body armor of 10,000 surplus pieces from the FBI and the DEA to 
local and State governments. It makes body armor more difficult to 
obtain by felons. And we are very hopeful this will be included.
  So we have the gang amendments, we have the lawmaking amendment, and 
the body armor.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the predecessor to this bill was 
introduced in the last Congress, I raised a number of concerns about 
the bill. I am glad to see that this amendment is much improved from 
the Hatch-Feinstein gang bill in the last Congress.
  This amendment also contains proposals that Senator DeWine and I have 
worked on together. For example, this amendment contains new procedures 
for law enforcement to obtain clone pagers. These are pagers held by 
law enforcement that duplicate the numeric messages received by a drug 
dealer or other criminal. This is a useful tool for law enforcement and 
I have long worked to streamline the procedures for the FBI, the DEA 
and other law enforcement agencies to obtain legal authorization to use 
clone pagers.
  For including this clone pager proposal in the amendment, along with 
the other improvements made by the sponsors, they should be commended. 
I know they worked hard on this amendment.
  I remain concerned about some of the penalties in this amendment. The 
amendment calls for a new death penalty and new mandatory minimums that 
should be revised in conference.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that an important 
provision that is based on a bill I introduced earlier this year has 
been included in the pending legislation.
  This provision would provide Federal matching grants to help our 
state and local law enforcement officers acquire life saving bullet 
resistant equipment. This provision is based on S. 726, the Officer 
Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999. 
S. 726 is named in memory of Dale Claxton, a Cortez, Colorado, police 
officer who was fatally shot through the windshield of his patrol car 
last year. A bullet resistant windshield could have saved his life.
  Unfortunately, incidents like this are far from isolated. All across 
our nation law enforcement officers, whether in hot pursuit, driving 
through dangerous neighborhoods, or pulled over on the side of the road 
behind an automobile, are at risk of being shot through their 
windshields. We must do what we can to prevent these kinds of tragedies 
as

[[Page 9880]]

better, lighter and more affordable types of bullet resistant glass and 
other equipment become available.
  While I served as a deputy sheriff in Sacramento County, California, 
I became personally aware of the inherent dangers law enforcement 
officers encounter each day on the front lines. Now that I serve as a 
U.S. Senator here in Washington, DC, I believe we should do what we can 
to help our law enforcement officers protect themselves as they risk 
their lives while protecting the American people from violent 
criminals.
  One important way we can do this is to help them acquire bullet 
resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held bullet 
resistant shields and other life saving bullet resistant equipment. 
This assistance is especially crucial for small local jurisdictions 
that often lack the funds needed to provide their officers with the 
life saving bullet resistant equipment they need.
  This Claxton bullet resistant equipment provision builds upon the 
successes of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 1605, which 
I introduced in the 105th Congress and the president signed into law 
last June. This program provides matching grants to state and local law 
enforcement agencies to help them purchase body armor for their 
officers. This provision builds upon this worthy program by expanding 
it to help them acquire additional types of bullet resistant equipment.
  The central part of the Claxton provision authorizes a new $40 
million matching grant program to help state, local, tribal and other 
small law enforcement agencies acquire bullet resistant equipment such 
as bullet resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held 
bullet resistant shields and other life saving equipment.
  This matching grant program is authorized for fiscal years 2000 
through 2002 and would be administered by the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance according to a formula that ensures fair distribution for 
all states, local communities, tribes and U.S. territories. To help 
ensure that these matching grants get to the jurisdictions that need 
them the most the bureau is directed to make at least half of the funds 
available to those smaller jurisdictions whose budgets are the most 
financially constrained.
  Another key part of the Claxton provision allocates $3 million over 3 
years to the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 
to conduct an expedited research and development program to speed up 
the deployment of new bullet resistant technologies and equipment. The 
development of new bullet resistant materials in the next few years 
could be as revolutionary in the next few years as Kevlar was for body 
armor in the 1970s. Exciting new technologies such as bonded acrylic, 
polymers, polycarbons, aluminized material and transparent ceramics 
promise to provide for lighter, more versatile and hopefully less 
expensive bullet resistant equipment.
  The Officer Dale Claxton provision also directs the NIJ to inventory 
existing technologies in the private sector, in surplus military 
property, and in use by other countries and to evaluate, develop 
standards, establish testing guidelines, and promote technology 
transfer.
  Our nation's state, local and tribal law enforcement officers 
regularly put their lives in harm's way and deserve to have access to 
the bullet resistant equipment they need. The Officer Dale Claxton bill 
will both get life saving bullet resistant equipment deployed into the 
field where it is are needed and accelerate the development of new 
lifesaving bullet resistant technologies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, unless there is opposition, I would yield 
that 2 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Has the Senator from California said all she wants to say on this?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe so, Mr. President. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 339

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the next amendment is that of Senator Byrd.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have been 
advised by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia that he 
will not require his time in favor of the amendment, other than the 
minute he has reserved just prior to the vote. I was prepared to yield 
back 5 minutes as a proponent. There may be, however, those who seek 
time as opponents.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I would like to take about a 
minute of Senator Byrd's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. And then protect the right of the Senator from California 
to speak in opposition.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment, which is 
nearly identical to a bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 577, The 
Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. 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 e-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.
  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.
  Having said that, I will yield back the remainder of any time the 
proponents have.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senior Senator from West 
Virginia for his dedication to enforcing state liquor laws. But I must 
disagree

[[Page 9881]]

with his approach. The Byrd amendment would permit the enforcement of 
state liquor laws in Federal court. This expansion of the jurisdiction 
of the Federal courts is not warranted and raises constitutional 
problems because one state may impose its laws on the citizens of 
another state under this amendment.
  In the Judiciary Committee, we recently held a hearing on this issue 
of direct sales of alcohol products over the Internet and via mail 
order. In our hearing, several expert witnesses raised questions about 
a similar bill by Senator Hatch, S. 577. I would like to work with 
Senator Byrd, Senator Hatch and others on the Judiciary Committee to 
see if we can refine this legislation to make sure it will pass 
constitutional muster. I have my doubts about constitutionality of the 
language before us today and will have to vote against the Byrd 
amendment as currently drafted.
  If the full Senate is to pass an amendment today on the interstate 
shipment of alcohol, I believe the amendment by Senator Feinstein is a 
more targeted and sounder approach.
  Her amendment would require clear labeling of alcoholic beverages 
shipped interstate and require the signature of an adult upon delivery 
of the alcoholic beverages.
  The Feinstein amendment does not raise constitutional issues and is 
targeted at preventing any underage purchase of alcoholic beverages 
over the Internet or through other direct sales.
  I will vote against the Byrd amendment and for the Feinstein 
amendment, because I believe that hers is constitutionally far more 
acceptable but also hits the problem far better.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before I relinquish the floor to Senator 
Feinstein, let me say that I think States need the ability to take 
action on their own to enforce their State liquor laws. Senator Byrd's 
amendment provides States with a Federal court forum to enjoin 
violations of their alcohol laws, denying violators the ability to hide 
behind a jurisdictional curtain.
  Mr. President, this is a summary of the Byrd amendment:
  First, it 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;
  Second, allows for venue for the suit where the defendant resides and 
were the violations occur;
  Third, no injunctions issued without prior notice to the opposing 
party;
  Fourth, requires that injunctions be specific as to the parties, the 
conduct and the rationale underlying the issuance of the injunction;
  Fifth, allows for quick consideration of the application for an 
injunction; conserves court resources by avoiding redundant 
proceedings; and
  Sixth, mandates a bench trial.
  Having said that, I probably will support both the Byrd amendment and 
the next amendment by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the ranking member for his comments. My views 
parallel his. I think the Byrd method is very well intentioned. I 
happened to be on the floor when the Senator presented it. However, I 
must say I believe it is overly broad. It would essentially permit 
States to deputize the Federal courts which exist to enforce Federal 
laws, not State laws. I believe it would have the unintended 
consequence of dramatically expanding the power of any one State in a 
matter which would diminish consumer choice and really harm legitimate 
businesses.
  This is more or less an intra-industry fight. California is home to 
90 percent of the domestic wine industry. The vast majority of these 
wineries are small family farms. The wine industry is certainly vital. 
Many of these small wineries essentially have wine tastings. 
Individuals come in, taste the wine. They do not have shelf space. The 
wine is expensive, and they will use the Internet to be able to ship 
this wine.
  The problem which has been presented for remedy is children obtaining 
this kind of alcoholic beverage through the Internet. I happen to doubt 
that children would buy $90 bottles of wine, but, nonetheless, the 
second amendment I will present in essence tackles the question at hand 
by saying that any of these shipments must be clearly labeled, and they 
must be received by someone who has the qualification to receive them, 
identification showing that that individual is entitled to receive them 
and is in fact an adult.
  Therefore, I do not believe this throwing of State alcohol law into 
the Federal courts is necessary to solve the problem at hand.
  I urge a no vote on the Byrd amendment and an aye vote on the 
Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.


                     Amendment No. 354, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now move to the debate on the 
Feinstein amendment.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment No. 354.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 354), as modified, 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,''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the modification I have sent to the 
desk changes the penalty, and I will explain that in a moment.
  The amendment, as I have just described it, would require persons who 
ship alcoholic beverages across State lines to: First, clearly and 
prominently label the contents as alcoholic beverages; second, state 
the full name of the person causing the package to be shipped; i.e., 
the seller; and third, state that an adult's signature is required. It 
would require the shippers--for example, Federal Express--to not 
deliver a package so labeled unless they can: One, verify that the 
person receiving the delivery is of legal age for purchasing alcoholic 
beverages; and, two, obtain that person's signature.
  Mr. President, the amendment I sent to the desk to modify would 
simply provide that existing penalties would apply to this bill. Those 
are criminal penalties of up to 1 year imprisonment and fines of up to 
$200,000 for organizations or $100,000 for individuals. A seller who 
violates this requirement on three or more occasions may have their ATF 
basic permit revoked. That is the effect of the law today, and we would 
repeat that penalty in this particular instance.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator wish to speak in opposition?
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all the time in 
opposition to this amendment on our side. We are prepared to vote.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
351. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 13, as follows:

[[Page 9882]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

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

                                NAYS--13

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Reed
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brownback
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 351) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold. The Senate will be 
in order. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are making headway. I ask unanimous 
consent that the remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 
minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just a point of clarification before we 
start to vote. Each side gets 1 minute before these votes. I urge 
Senators on both sides to give attention to both proponents and 
opponents so they can be heard. Senator Hatch and I have worked very 
hard to get it down to this list, so we should make sure both sides are 
protected and can be heard.


                           Amendment No. 352

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Kohl-Hatch amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just make one quick comment and then 
yield to Senator Kohl.
  The Kohl-Hatch amendment provides qualified immunity to law-abiding 
gun owners who use a child safety lock or gun storage unit and requires 
that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock or gun storage unit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, none of us is naive enough to believe 
today's vote signals a bipartisan consensus on all gun control issues, 
or even most of them. But after a week of back-and-forth--and forth-
and-back--over firearms, it is good to see a consensus developing on at 
least this commonsense measure to keep handguns away from children. 
Simply put, the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment will ensure that a child 
safety device--or trigger lock--is sold with every handgun.
  This proposal will move us forward today, and it will help save 
lives. I hope we can all support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. HATCH. We yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the Hatch-Kohl amendment. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announced that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

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

                                NAYS--20

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Grams
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Mack
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brownback
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 352) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 353

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this next amendment is the Hatch-Feinstein 
amendment. It is an amendment to give enhanced authority to combat gang 
violence. In addition to combating gang violence, this also is an 
amendment that bans bombmaking information on the Internet or 
information on the Internet with intent to injure.
  I described this rather fully in my opening remarks earlier in the 
day. I give the rest of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, I say to the Senator. And thank 
you, Mr. President.
  This amendment essentially has four parts. One relates to gangs that 
move across interstate lines practicing criminal enterprise, the second 
is body armor, the third is bombmaking, and the fourth is animal 
terrorism.
  Essentially, with respect to gangs, this bill will increase sentences 
for gang members who commit Federal crimes. It will enhance the ability 
of Federal prosecutors to prosecute gangs for this crime. And it will 
add serious juvenile drug offenses to the Armed Career Criminal Act.
  With respect to body armor, there are about 10,000 surplus pieces of 
body armor that the FBI and DEA have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Does anyone yield time in opposition to the amendment? The Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is not in opposition, but I will use 
that time if nobody else is seeking it.
  This is much improved from what it was last year. It has included a 
proposal that Senator DeWine and I have worked on together. My one 
concern is the penalties. It does call for a new death penalty and new 
mandatory minimum.
  I will tell the distinguished Senator from California and the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, these are issues that will be raised 
in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 353. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''

[[Page 9883]]

  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

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

                                NAYS--13

     Biden
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Murray
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brownback
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 353) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 339

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this proposal by Senator Kohl and myself 
simply authorizes the attorney general of a State to go into Federal 
district court and seek an injunction against any person importing 
alcohol into that State in violation of that State's law. 
Unfortunately, recent Federal court decisions have held that States do 
not necessarily have the power to seek such an injunction despite the 
fact that the 21st amendment to the Constitution and the Webb-Kenyon 
Act give States the power to prohibit alcohol importation. As a 
consequence, many States are at a loss when it comes to enforcing their 
own laws.
  For those who may have concerns with this proposal, let me state 
unequivocally that the amendment will not restrict the lawful 
manufacture, advertisement, sale, transportation, or importation of any 
alcoholic beverage. As long as a distiller, or a brewer, or a winemaker 
complies with the laws of the given State, they will have no additional 
restrictions placed upon them by this amendment. The only ones who need 
to fear this amendment are those who are conducting their business in 
an unlawful manner, particularly those who are willing to sell alcohol 
to our children.
  Mr. President, as the Senate considers this juvenile justice bill, 
designed to reduce the scourge of youth violence and crime, I beseech 
my colleagues to remember that alcohol use and abuse constitute an 
important facet of this national problem. Let us not overlook the 
pernicious effects that alcohol has on our young people. Let us not 
turn our backs on them by foregoing this opportunity to put a stop to 
those who choose to evade our laws. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. The 
amendment really is developed because of problems with alcohol being 
shipped to minors, and the amendment has major concern to the 
California wine industry. We believe it opens the Federal courts to 
State law. It does not focus on underage drinking, it is not supported 
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and it is opposed by the largest 
Internet trade group and by the wine industry.
  Rather, my amendment would focus directly on underage drinking by 
requiring that any shipment be clearly marked with a label as to what 
the contents are and require that the recipient be qualified to receive 
it--in other words, be able to present identification that that person 
is, in fact, an adult.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 
339.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Allard
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Collins
     Feinstein
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Mack
     Murray
     Reed
     Roth
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brownback
     Moynihan
      

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

      
     McCain
      
  The amendment (No. 339) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 354, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the Feinstein 
amendment. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HATCH. May I ask the distinguished Senator from California, since 
everybody understands this, why don't we yield back the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber.
  Mr. HATCH. If I could ask the distinguished Senator from California--
I certainly support this amendment; I believe everyone understands 
that--why don't we just yield back the time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield back the time on this side.
  Mr. GRAMM. Can't we just voice vote it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Can we voice vote this amendment? I ask unanimous consent 
that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 354), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page 9884]]


  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in just a few minutes we believe we can get 
consent to have three more votes this evening and we will put over a 
stacked group of amendments for tomorrow, but we are just a few minutes 
away from having that consent. I suggest the absence of a quorum while 
we get it.
  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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
resume S. 254, and the amendments, in this order tonight: Amendment No. 
358, followed by amendment No. 348; that these will be the next two 
amendments, previously debated, to the pending juvenile justice bill, 
which will now be the pending question, in the order in which they were 
offered, with up to 5 minutes equally divided for additional debate 
prior to a vote on or in relation to these two amendments.
  I further ask that notwithstanding a vote in relation to an 
amendment, if any amendment is not tabled or skipped in the voting 
sequence, it then be laid aside for additional votes in the sequence, 
with the amendments reoccurring at the end of the sequence ending with 
amendment No. 361.
  I further ask that following the disposition of each debate on each 
amendment, the amendment be laid aside, and at the hour of 5:50 p.m. 
today the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendments, 
in the order in which they were offered, with 2 minutes prior to each 
vote for explanation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not----
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for one other question? I believe I 
said amendment 358, but the two amendments tonight will be 359 and 348, 
in that order. I ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, the Senator has asked for rollcalls on 
those two votes, but then he asked for consent after that to sequence 
which amendments and in what order?
  Mr. HATCH. To sequence the remaining amendments, the skipped 
amendments, in the order in which they were following amendment No. 
361. In other words, we are putting them at the end of the group of 
amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.
  I understand that Senator Harkin is not here.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am here. I am trying to figure it out myself.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. What this does, I tell Senators on my side of the aisle, 
is say we will have two votes tonight. They have to go out of the 
sequence, but then we go back to the sequence. It is my understanding, 
from the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, that those will be the 
only two rollcall votes we will have tonight, and then we will be back 
on the sequence tomorrow, if I am correct.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  If I could get recognition, if the Senator desires to have some 
debate on his amendment tonight, that will be fine and will be 
anticipated also. So we will do these two out of sequence, with the 
last vote occurring probably around 6:15 or so.
  Mr. LEAHY. Or earlier.
  Mr. LOTT. Or perhaps earlier. That will be the last vote tonight. The 
next amendment in order will be the amendment the Senator from Iowa is 
concerned about. And if he would like to debate that tonight, that 
would be fine.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding 
that for 359 and 348, we will have those two votes. That will be all 
tonight?
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. HARKIN. Then what will occur after that? What is the next thing 
in sequence?
  Mr. HATCH. Could I make it clear? After that will occur No. 360, then 
No. 361, then No. 356, then No. 357, and last will be No. 355, which is 
the amendment the distinguished Senator is concerned with.
  Mr. HARKIN. And your unanimous consent did not put any time limit on 
that?
  Mr. LEAHY. No.
  Mr. HATCH. We did not. I ask unanimous consent that they be put in 
that order, with No. 355, the one with which the distinguished Senator 
is concerned, last on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, is there a time limit?
  Mr. HATCH. There is not.
  Mr. HARKIN. On any of these?
  Mr. HATCH. No.
  Mr. LEAHY. No. It is my understanding that there is a time limit on 
only the two this evening.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see.
  Mr. HATCH. We are hoping we can set aside basically the other 
controversial, but not seriously controversial, amendments to be 
stacked tomorrow at some time, in accordance with the wishes of the 
majority and minority leaders, and they will proceed in the same way 
these have. But we understand on No. 355 there is not a time limit.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will not object as long as I understand and the record 
is clear that on amendment No. 355, the Frist-Ashcroft amendment on 
IDEA, there is no time limit.
  Mr. HATCH. No time limit. It will be the last of the amendments in 
the order we are listing them.
  I ask unanimous consent that that be so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I hope we can move to these two amendments. We have 5 
minutes to debate them.


                           Amendment No. 359

  Mr. HATCH. The first amendment coming up will be Senator Wellstone's 
on domestic violence for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask a question first? I am sorry. I do not 
intend to take a lot of time.
  Is there a time limit on this amendment tonight?
  Mr. HATCH. The time limit of 5 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. Could we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this amendment goes right to the heart of this 
legislation. If we are serious about youth violence, one of the things 
we want to do is help kids before they get into trouble.
  This amendment would authorize grant money which would go to the 
community level for counselors and courts and schools and health care 
providers and teachers and battered women programs to provide support 
and help to those children who witness violence in their homes.
  We have focused on the violence against the adult--usually the woman, 
I am very sorry to say. But one of the things I found around the 
country, I say to my colleagues, is that we have not provided the 
support for kids. If you care about this issue of family violence, and 
if you care about trying to get more support for children who witness 
this and see it all the time and then cannot do well in school and are 
in trouble, then you need to support this amendment.
  In the bill right now, the language is not specific; it is very weak. 
It just simply talks about kids at risk, but it does not focus 
specifically on the problem of violence in homes and the effects on 
children who witness this violence. This is one of the best amendments 
we could support.
  For those of you who have done this work dealing with the issues of 
family violence, for those of you who care about reducing violence in 
families and supporting children, this is really an important 
amendment. I hope it will have strong support.

[[Page 9885]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on 
this amendment, except let me just say this: I very much appreciate the 
efforts of the Senator from Minnesota. As I read it, it provides for 
six new grant programs totaling $170 million.
  Mr. President, as you know, the issue of domestic violence, including 
its impact on children, is one that has been of paramount concern to me 
over the past 10 years. Working with Senator Biden, and the Senate, the 
Senate acted decisively in 1994 by passing the Violence Against Women 
Act. Moreover, in the years following passage of this landmark 
legislation, this Senate has consistently funded programs authorized by 
that legislation.
  I do agree with my colleague; we probably could do more. We certainly 
can do better. For that reason, Senator Biden and I have begun working 
on a significant and thorough review of the act.
  In 1994, we created many new programs, and we have spent hundreds of 
millions of dollars to fund them. I think it is time to examine what 
works and what doesn't as we look to reauthorizing this Act. Further, I 
think we need to examine carefully whether and what kind of additional 
programs are necessary and appropriate.
  The Senator's amendment raises an important issue--the impact of 
domestic violence on children and what can be done to alleviate this 
problem. I am not prepared, however, at this time, to endorse his 
solutions.
  I understand why the Senator would try to use this bill as a vehicle 
for his amendment, but I disagree. Rather, these suggestions, along 
with others, ought to be considered in the context of reauthorizing the 
Violence Against Women Act. For example, several of the NEW grant 
programs proposed sound to me as if they ought to be considered as a 
discretionary use of funds in existing VAWA programs. Further, whereas 
we have a major Act on the books that deals with domestic violence, the 
new Wellston grant programs contain a new and different definition of 
domestic violence. Mr. President, these are not the kind of changes we 
should be making in the context of a juvenile crime bill.
  Let me close by commending the Senator from Minnesota. But for the 
reasons stated, I will at the appropriate time move to table his 
amendment because I think we are going to work this out in the future. 
And let's work it out in the appropriate bill.
  I yield back any further time we have.


                           Amendment No. 348

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we now move to the Ashcroft amendment No. 
348.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, 50 percent of all arsons, 37 percent of all burglaries 
are committed by juveniles, 17 percent of all forcible rapes.
  Our juvenile justice system is no longer being asked to deal with 
chewing gum and spitballs in the hall but real violent crime.
  This amendment is very straightforward and simple. It says that while 
juveniles are committing adult crimes with firearms, they should be 
treated as adults; that if juveniles are going to be involved in rapes, 
murders, armed robberies, armed assaults, that kind of violent crime, 
using firearms, that we want to provide the encouragement, incentive, 
and resources from the Federal level for States to treat those 
individuals as adults. So this amendment provides States with 
incentives to try juveniles as adults when they commit armed violent 
crimes.
  Specifically, this amendment encourages States to try juveniles as 
adults when youth over 14 use firearms. This is not just any kind of 
crime, but when youth over 14 use firearms to commit murder, forcible 
rape, armed robbery, armed assault, and use firearms in major drug 
crimes. We have a real serious situation where young people are 
committing crimes that we once thought were reserved to adults.
  Juveniles should understand that we will not consider this to be some 
sort of status offense or delinquency, that the commission of real 
violent crime by juveniles will be treated as adult crime. The 
unpleasant fact is that all too many juveniles commit serious armed 
crime. The answer is to prosecute these crimes vigorously to the full 
extent of the law.
  This amendment provides States with substantial incentives to give 
adult time to juveniles who commit adult crimes. The purpose and thrust 
of this amendment, thus, is very narrow. For a narrow range of crimes--
murder, rape, robbery, assault, major drug crimes--committed with a 
firearm, we provide Federal incentives and resources to try those 
criminals as adults with adult penalties.
  It is with that in mind that this amendment obviously is one which I 
believe merits the support of all the Members of the Senate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. How many States presently have laws on the books which 
impose the penalty of add-ons for children, those under the age of 14, 
for these crimes?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. First of all, this amendment refers to children 14 or 
over, not under the age of 14.
  Mr. DURBIN. How many States?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I don't know the exact number of States, but a number 
of States do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will tell the Senator from Illinois, 
there are only two States, Kentucky and Mississippi, that would be in 
compliance with this amendment's mandate, only two States in the whole 
country. Basically, the amendment would tell all the other States, your 
legislatures are irrelevant. We know better here.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Surely.
  Mr. DURBIN. Do I understand, then, that 48 other States would be 
disqualified from Federal grants?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right. In fact, the National Governors' 
Association wrote to both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the 
Senate last year and asked them to oppose this kind of intrusion into 
the domain of State legislatures.
  Mr. DURBIN. So under the provision of this amendment, only two 
States, Mississippi and Kentucky, could receive Federal funds to try to 
deter juvenile crime?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right. The other 48 States would be cut out.
  Mr. DURBIN. This is a good idea for Mississippi and Kentucky. I don't 
know about the rest of us.
  Mr. LEAHY. It kind of hurts the rest of us.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 27 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have to oppose this. I have to oppose 
this, because, one, it would help only two States in the country, 
Kentucky and Mississippi. It conditions the juvenile accountability 
block grant in the bill to the other 48 States only if their 
legislatures did something that they have all refused to do.
  We are telling these other States that their legislatures are totally 
irrelevant; they must change their law because we know better here. I 
really don't think that is the way to go. I come from a State that has 
probably the toughest juvenile laws in the country, but I am not going 
to tell my State how they must do. Frankly, Mr. President, I oppose the 
amendment. I hope the 48 States that would be cut out by this would 
listen to what the National Governors' Association said when they, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, urged the Senate not to go forward 
with this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I made a mistake in the sequence. Number 
358 should follow immediately after No. 357, so I ask unanimous consent 
that that be so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9886]]

  The Senator from Iowa.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Hlavacek, 
a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the 
pendency of this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 359

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the Wellstone amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 359. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:20 p.m. 
on Wednesday the Senate resume the following amendments previously 
debated to the pending juvenile justice bill: No. 357, No. 358, No. 
360, and No. 361, with 10 minutes equally divided for additional debate 
prior to the vote on or in relation to these amendments.
  I further ask following disposition of debate on each amendment, the 
amendment be laid aside and at the hour of 1 p.m. Wednesday, the Senate 
proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendments in the order in 
which they were offered, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for 
explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the 
Senate will resume the juvenile justice bill at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 
with Members offering new amendments from the list of amendments. 
However, votes will occur on previously offered amendments, beginning 
at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, so I urge my colleagues to offer their 
amendments in the morning for swift passage of the juvenile justice 
bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, if there are things we can do 
on the bill tonight we will still do them but without recorded votes, 
is that correct?
  Mr. HATCH. We are going to be working on the managers' amendment this 
evening.


                           Amendment No. 348

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is to be 2 minutes equally divided on 
the Ashcroft amendment No. 348. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the Senator to yield back his time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time if 
the other side is prepared to yield back theirs.
  Mr. LEAHY. In fairness to the Senator from Missouri, I will speak for 
30 seconds on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, violent crime by juveniles is a major 
problem: forcible rape, murder, armed robbery, armed assault. This 
amendment simply says if you are going to commit armed robbery, 
forcible rape with the use of a firearm, murder using a firearm, 
assault using a firearm, or major drug crimes using a firearm, you 
should be tried as an adult. This is a way of sending the clearest 
message that adult crime deserves adult time and that use of a firearm 
is unacceptable. Chapter 44 in the code addresses the use of a firearm 
over and over again. Use of firearms is something we care about 
federally. We spend a lot of time debating it.
  The question is, are we serious about curtailing the use of firearms, 
especially among young people? I think we should be. This amendment 
provides for trying those as adults and provides access to resources in 
return for so doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reason the Governors of these States, 
all of them, wrote to the Democratic and Republican leaders in 
opposition to this is it would knock out the juvenile accountability 
block grant in the bill to 48 of the States--48 of the States. The only 
two that would get anything would be Kentucky and Mississippi. It would 
tell the other 48 States that their legislatures are irrelevant, their 
laws are irrelevant. We know better. That is true even in some States 
that have tougher laws than this would propose.
  Because of that, I agree with the Governors, Republican and Democrat; 
we should not override our States this way. I oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ashcroft 
Amendment No. 348. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Smith (NH)
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--73

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray

[[Page 9887]]


     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 348) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said that we build 
our homes, then our homes build us. I can say happily that my home 
built me! I was fortunate to have had a great childhood--with two 
wonderful parents, a great church, and more than a few wise and 
supportive teachers throughout my school years. I grew up in Lithonia, 
Georgia, in a community that cared. Unfortunately, not all children 
growing up in America today are so blessed. Not all children have homes 
that shape and prepare them to deal with the culture of violence in the 
world today.
  Back in the 50s, my action heroes were Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, 
and Gene Autry. They were the good guys, who righted wrong and always 
got the girl. A witness at a Commerce Committee hearing 2 weeks ago 
described today's action heroes: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and 
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, whose TV show, we were told, averaged 100 
acts of violence every single episode.
  When I was in school, the strongest drug around was aspirin, and the 
most lethal weapon was a sling shot. Last year, over 6,000 students 
were expelled for carrying a weapon to school--and most said they 
carried the weapon ``out of a need for protection.'' So far this year--
and the year is only 5 months old--19 young people have met a violent 
death while in school. Our schools were once safe havens in this 
country, and there is something very wrong, as President Clinton points 
out, ``when kids are more worried about guns and violence than math and 
science.''
  The underlying fear of Littleton is that it is symptomatic of a 
broader pattern of youth violence in this country. Events at Columbine 
High echo the school shootings in Springfield, OR, when a student 
invaded the cafeteria, killed a fellow student, and wounded 22 others. 
It echoes events in Jonesboro, AR, where two Middle School students 
opened fire, killing five students all under the age of 13 and wounding 
10 others. One of the young killers was reportedly angry over the 
breakup with his girlfriend. It echoes the West Paducah, KY murders in 
which a fourteen-year-old student stormed a prayer group meeting before 
school, killed three teenaged girls, and wounded five more students. It 
was reported that the teen killer may have been teased by members of 
the prayer group as well as members of the school's football team.
  In interviews with the neighbors of the Littleton killers, each one--
almost without exception--saw little sign of the tragedy that lay 
ahead. These are the words of one of those neighbors:

       I turn on the news and I see their house, and I think, 
     ``That's my house! . . . It's the exact same house, the same 
     windows, same driveway, same trim, everything except the 
     color. I lie in bed thinking: 200 feet from my bedroom is 
     where the guy conceived this idea to destroy everything we 
     thought we had. Everything you thought you knew about your 
     neighborhood, your schools, your churches--all just 
     shattered. Vaporized. We feel like we are at ground zero.''

  What causes two seemingly ``normal'' teenagers to go on a killing 
rampage? Is it a change in our culture? Is it our marketing of violent 
movies like ``The Basketball Diaries'' and gory video games like 
``Doom?'' Is it access to Internet recipes for building bombs? Is it 
the plight of ``latchkey'' kids who come home every day after school to 
an empty house? What is the WHY of Littleton? What are the toxic 
factors that are producing the alarming trend in this country where 
young people settle their grievances with mass murders?
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment by Senator Lieberman 
which would create a National Commission on Youth Violence. It will 
bring together religious leaders, educators, Cabinet heads, experts in 
parenting, in law enforcement, and psychology all focused on a single 
mission: To understand what factors conspire to create a Littleton and 
what actions we can take to address the possible causes of youth 
violence. The task will not be easy and the answers will not be simple. 
But this amendment is a critically important step in addressing the 
culture of violence that is pervading every segment of our society.
  It is obvious to me that we are in a cultural war in this country for 
the hearts and minds of our young people. And in anything and 
everything we can do to help and strengthen our children through safe 
schools, through smaller classrooms, through greater adult interaction 
and support, we should absolutely do. This Congress has a role. And one 
of the things we can--and should do--is to adopt the Lieberman 
amendment. The national commission will seek answers to the perplexing 
questions of how we deal with the hearts and minds of our youngsters in 
this cultural war. And, sadly enough, like real war, there are 
casualties. Littleton, CO is an example of that. Our hope is that we 
can take some positive action that mitigates the death and destruction 
of the Columbine tragedy.
  What is at stake is no less than this Nation's most precious 
resource, our number one asset--our children. As the writer James Agee 
said, ``In every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances, 
and of no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is 
born again.'' Mr. President, on behalf of America's children, I am very 
pleased that the Lieberman amendment has been accepted by both sides 
and is part of this important legislation.

                          ____________________