[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17477-17482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      JUVENILE JUSTICE CONFERENCE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, talking about things that are being held 
up, I want to talk about the juvenile justice conference. Last year, in 
response to the terrible tragedy at Columbine, we passed a bipartisan 
juvenile justice bill through the Senate. Something like 73 Senators of 
both parties voted for this bill. We had weeks of debate. We had a 
number of amendments that improved it and a number of amendments that 
were rejected, but we had a full and open debate and a number of 
rollcall votes. As I said, it passed with 73 Senators voting for it.
  That was last year. I urged before school started last year that we 
have a conference and work out the differences, if there are 
differences, between the House and the Senate; that we vote up or down. 
The conference is chaired by a Republican Senator, and we have not had 
anything other than a formal meeting to start the conference the day 
before the August recess in 1999. We have not met since then. We went 
off to our summer vacation and came back to schools starting all across 
the country. We just returned this week from this year's summer recess 
and we still have not had a meeting of the conferees.
  I have been willing to accept votes up or down on matters of 
difference. I point out there are more Republicans on the conference 
than there are Democrats, Republicans chair both delegations from both 
Houses, so Republicans control the conference. If they do not like 
something that is in the conference, they can vote it down, they can 
vote it out. I know the we are in the minority. What I want to do is 
get this juvenile justice bill through so we can make the school year 
better, more productive, more educational, and a safer one.
  The President of the United States was concerned enough about this 
that he invited the Republican leadership and Democratic leadership to 
meet with him at the White House. I recall that he spent nearly 2 hours 
with us going over the bill. He indicated that he wanted to work with 
us to get a good law enacted. All he wanted to do was to get us to at 
least meet on the Hatch-Leahy juvenile crime bill that passed the 
Senate by a 3-to-1 bipartisan majority vote back on May 20, 1999. This 
is the Hatch-Leahy bill. Even with the two chief sponsors, you span the 
political spectrum.
  I urge again that the Congress not continue to stall this major piece 
of legislation. I remind Republicans, if they do not like anything 
Democrats have put in the bill, they can vote us down. There are more 
Republican Senate conferees than there are Democratic conferees. There 
are more Republican House conferees than there are Democratic 
conferees. If the Republicans do not like something in it, they can 
just vote to remove it. There is nothing we can do to stop that. But at 
least take what is a good piece of

[[Page 17478]]

legislation that will protect our children in school and let it go 
forward.
  It has been 17 months since the tragedy at Columbine High School. 
Fourteen students and a teacher lost their lives there. Surely we could 
do better than to just stall this bill and hold this bill up.
  Every parent, every teacher, every student in this country is 
concerned about the school violence over the last few years. It does 
not make any difference which political affiliation it is. If you are a 
parent, you are worried about the safety of your children going to 
school. If you are a teacher, you are worried about your workplace. If 
you are a student, you worry when you go to school.
  Now, many fear that there will be more tragedies. The list of places 
suffering incidents of school violence continues to grow to include 
Arkansas, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, and Florida.
  We all know there is no single cause. There is no single legislative 
solution to cure the ill of youth violence in our schools or on our 
streets. But we have had an opportunity for us to do our part. Frankly, 
I am disappointed in the Republican majority because they are 
squandering this opportunity.
  We passed this bill, with 73 Senators--Republicans and Democrats 
alike joining to pass this bill--by an overwhelming margin. The least 
we could do is not allow it to then languish without ever being brought 
up for final action so the President can either sign it or veto it.
  We should have seized this opportunity to act on balanced, effective 
juvenile justice legislation. Instead, the Senate has been in recess 
more than in session since the single ceremonial meeting of the 
juvenile crime conference. Just think of that. That is wrong. Let us go 
forward and pass this.
  In fact, the Republican chairman of the House-Senate conference, at 
our one and only conference meeting in August 1999, said:

       Our Nation has been riveted by a series of horrific school 
     shootings in recent years, which culminated this spring--

  Remember, this was said last year--

     with the tragic death of 12 students and one teacher at 
     Columbine High School in Colorado. Sadly, the killings at 
     Columbine High School are not an isolated event. In 1997, 
     juveniles accounted for nearly one-fifth of all criminal 
     arrests in the United States. Juveniles committed 13.5 
     percent of all murders, more than 17 percent of all rapes, 
     nearly 30 percent of all robberies, 50 percent of all arsons. 
     While juvenile crime has dipped slightly in the last 2 years, 
     it remains at historically unprecedented levels. Such 
     violence makes this legislation necessary.

  I agree with the Republican chairman of that conference that such 
violence makes this legislation necessary. I absolutely agree with him. 
But I do not agree with him then leaving that conference well over a 
year ago and never coming back and never completing the work.
  We have to finish this. We have to finish this bill. All we have to 
do is bring the conference together. Ninety-eight percent of the bill 
would be agreed to very quickly. If there is 2 percent remaining, then 
vote it up or vote on it.
  During the course of Senate debate on the bill in May 1999 we were 
able to make to the bill better, stronger and better balanced. It 
became more comprehensive and more respectful of the core protections 
in federal juvenile justice legislation that have served us so well 
over the last three decades. At the same time we made it more 
respectful of the primary role of the States in prosecuting criminal 
matters.
  I recognize, as we all do, that no legislation is perfect and that 
legislation alone is not enough to stop youth violence. We can pass an 
assortment of new laws and still turn on the news to find out that some 
child somewhere in the country has turned violent and turned on other 
children and teachers, with terrible results.
  All of us--whether we are parents, grandparents, teachers, 
psychologists, or policy-makers--puzzle over the causes of kids turning 
violent in our country. The root causes are likely multi-faceted. We 
can all point to inadequate parental involvement or supervision, over-
crowded classrooms and over-sized schools that add to students' 
alienation, the easy accessibility of lethal weapons, the violence 
depicted on television, in movies and video games, or inappropriate 
content available on the Internet. There is no single cause and no 
single legislative solution that will cure the ill of youth violence in 
our schools or in our streets. Nevertheless, our legislation would have 
been a significant step in the right direction. As the FBI Report 
released on September 6, 2000 entitled ``The School Shooter'' points 
out, there are a number of factors that make a child turn violent.
  The Senate bill, S. 254, started out as a much-improved bill from the 
one reported by the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress. In fact, 
a number of proposals that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee 
specifically voted down in 1997 were incorporated at the outset into 
this bill. These are changes that I and other Democrats have been 
urging on our Republican colleagues for the past few years, and that 
they have resisted until quietly incorporated into this bill.
  I tried in July 1997 to amend the earlier bill to protect the State's 
traditional prerogative in handling juvenile offenders and avoid the 
unnecessary federalization of juvenile crime that so concerns the Chief 
Justice and the Federal judiciary. Specifically, my 1997 amendment 
would have limited the federal trial as an adult of juveniles charged 
with nonviolent felonies to circumstances when the State is unwilling 
or unable to exercise jurisdiction. This amendment was defeated, with 
all the Republicans voting against it.
  The Senate bill last year contained a new provision designed to 
address these federalism concerns that would direct federal prosecutors 
to ``exercise a presumption in favor of referral'' of juvenile cases to 
the appropriate State or tribal authorities, where there is 
``concurrent jurisdiction,'' unless the State declines jurisdiction and 
there is a substantial federal interest in the case.
  Yet, concerns remained that the bill would undermine a State's 
traditionally prerogative to handle juvenile offenders.
  The changes we made to the underlying bill in the Hatch-Leahy 
managers' amendment went a long way to satisfy my concerns. For 
example, S. 254 as introduced would have repealed the very first 
section of the Federal Criminal Code dealing with ``Correction of 
Youthful Offenders.'' This is the section that establishes a clear 
presumption that the States--not the federal government--should handle 
most juvenile offenders [18 U.S.C. section 5001]. While the original S. 
254 would have repealed that provision, the Managers' amendment 
retained it in slightly modified form.
  In addition, the original S. 254 would have required federal 
prosecutors to refer most juvenile cases to the State in cases of 
``concurrent jurisdiction . . . over both the offense and the 
juvenile.'' This language created a recipe for sharp lawyering. Federal 
prosecutors could avoid referral by simply claiming there was no 
``concurrent'' jurisdiction over the ``offense'' due to linguistic or 
other differences between the federal and state crimes. Even if the 
juvenile's conduct violated both Federal and State law, any difference 
in how those criminal laws were written could be used to argue they 
were different offenses altogether. This was a huge loophole that could 
have allowed federal prosecutors to end-run the presumption of referral 
to the State.
  We fixed this in the Managers' Amendment, and clarified that whenever 
the federal government or the State have criminal laws that punish the 
same conduct and both have jurisdiction over the juvenile, federal 
prosecutors should refer the juvenile to the State in most instances.
  Finally, I was concerned that, contrary to current law, a federal 
prosecutor's decision to proceed against a juvenile in federal court 
would not be subject to any judicial review. The Managers' Amendment 
permitted such judicial review, except in cases involving serious 
violent or serious drug offenses.
  Federal Trial of Juveniles as Adults. Another area of concern had 
been the

[[Page 17479]]

ease with which the original S. 254 would have allowed federal 
prosecutors to prosecute juveniles 14 years and older as adults for any 
felony.
  While I have long favored simplifying and streamlining current 
federal procedures for trying juveniles, I believe that judicial review 
is an important check in the system, particularly when you are dealing 
with children.
  This bill, S. 254, included a ``reverse waiver'' proposal allowing 
for judicial review of most cases in which a juvenile is charged as an 
adult in federal court. I had suggested a similar proposal in July 
1997, when I tried to amend the earlier bill before the Judiciary 
Committee to permit limited judicial review of a federal prosecutor's 
decision to try certain juveniles as adults. That prior bill granted 
sole, non-reviewable authority to federal prosecutors to try juveniles 
as adults for any federal felony, removing federal judges from that 
decision altogether. My 1997 amendment would have granted federal 
judges authority in appropriate cases to review a prosecutor's decision 
and to handle the juvenile case in a delinquency proceeding rather than 
try the juvenile as an adult.
  Only three States in the country granted prosecutors the 
extraordinary authority over juvenile cases that the earlier bill had 
proposed. We saw the consequences of that kind of authority, when a 
local prosecutor in Florida charged as an adult a 15-year-old mildly 
retarded boy with no prior record who stole $2 from a school classmate 
to buy lunch. The local prosecutor charged him as an adult and locked 
him up in an adult jail for weeks before national press coverage forced 
a review of the charging decision in the case.
  This was not the kind of incident I wanted happening on the federal 
level. Unfortunately, my proposal for a ``reverse waiver'' procedure 
providing judicial review of a prosecutor's decision was voted down in 
Committee in 1997, with no Republican on the Committee voting for it.
  I was pleased that S. 254 contained a ``reverse waiver'' provision, 
despite the Committee's rejection of this proposal three years ago. 
Though made belated, this was a welcome change in the bill. The 
Managers' amendment made important improvements to that provision, as 
well.
  First, S. 254 gave a juvenile defendant only 20 days to file a 
reverse waiver motion after the date of the juvenile's first 
appearance. This time was too short, and could have lapsed before the 
juvenile was indicted and was aware of the actual charges. The 
Managers' amendment extended the time to make a reverse waiver motion 
to 30 days, which begins at the time the juvenile defendant appears to 
answer an indictment.
  Second, S. 254 required the juvenile defendant to show by ``clear and 
convincing'' evidence that he or she should be tried as a juvenile 
rather than an adult. This is a very difficult standard to meet, 
particularly under strict time limits. Thus, the Managers' amendment 
changed this standard to a ``preponderance'' of the evidence. These are 
all significant improvements over the version of this bill considered 
originally in the 105th Congress.
  Juvenile Records. As initially introduced, S. 254 would have required 
juvenile criminal records for any federal offense, no matter how petty, 
to be sent to the FBI. This criminal record would haunt the juvenile as 
he grew into an adult, with no possibility of expungement from the 
FBI's database.
  The Managers' amendment made important changes to this record 
requirement. The juvenile records sent to the FBI would be limited to 
acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult. In addition, 
under the Managers' amendment, a juvenile would be able after 5 years 
to petition the court to have the criminal record removed from the FBI 
database, if the juvenile showed by clear and convincing evidence that 
he or she is no longer a danger to the community. Expungement of 
records from the FBI's database would not apply to juveniles convicted 
of rape, murder or certain other serious felonies.
  Increasing Witness Tampering Penalties. This bill, S. 254, also 
contained a provision to increase penalties for witness tampering that 
I first suggested and included in the ``Youth Violence, Crime and Drug 
Abuse Control Act of 1997,'' S. 15, which was introduced in the first 
weeks of the 105th Congress, at the end of the last Congress in the 
``Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484, 
and again in S. 9, the comprehensive package of crime proposals 
introduced with Senator Daschle at the beginning of this Congress. This 
provision would increase the penalty for using or threatening physical 
force against any person with intent to tamper with a witness, victim 
or informant from a maximum of ten to twenty years' imprisonment. In 
addition, the provision adds a conspiracy penalty for obstruction of 
justice offenses involving witnesses, victims and informants.
  I have long been concerned about the undermining of our criminal 
justice system by criminal efforts to threaten or harm witnesses, 
victims and informants, to stop them from cooperating with and 
providing assistance to law enforcement. I tried to include this 
provision, along with several other law enforcement initiatives, by 
amendment to the earlier bill during Committee mark-up on July 11, 
1997, but this amendment was voted down by all the Republicans on the 
Committee. At the end of the mark-up, however, this witness tampering 
provision was quietly accepted and I am pleased that it is included in 
S. 254.
  Eligibility Requirements for Accountability Block Grant. This bill, 
S. 254, substantially relaxes the eligibility requirements for the new 
juvenile accountability block grant. By contrast, the bill in the last 
Congress would have required States to comply with a host of new 
federal mandates to qualify for the first cent of grant money, such as 
permitting juveniles 14 years and older to be prosecuted as adults for 
violent felonies, establishing graduated sanctions for juvenile 
offenders, implementing drug testing programs for juveniles upon 
arrest, and nine new juvenile record-keeping requirements. These 
record-keeping mandates would have required, for example, that States 
fingerprint and photograph juveniles arrested for any felony act and 
send those records to the FBI, plus make all juvenile delinquency 
records available to law enforcement agencies and to schools, including 
colleges and universities. We could find no State that would have 
qualified for this grant money without agreeing to change their laws in 
some fashion to satisfy the twelve new mandates.
  In 1997, I tried to get the Judiciary Committee to relax the new 
juvenile record-keeping mandates under the accountability grant program 
during the mark-up of the earlier bill. My 1997 amendment would have 
limited the record-keeping requirements to crimes of violence or felony 
acts committed by juveniles, rather than to all juvenile offenses no 
matter how petty. But my amendment was voted down on July 23, 1997, by 
the Republicans on the Committee. Finally, two years later, S. 254 
reflects the criticism I and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 
leveled at the strict eligibility and record-keeping requirements.
  Indeed, the Senate decisively rejected this approach when it defeated 
an amendment by a Republican Senator that would have revived those 
straight-jacket eligibility requirements. Specifically, his amendment 
would have required States to try as adults juveniles 14 years or older 
who committed certain crimes. As I pointed out during floor debate on 
this amendment, only two States would have qualified for grant funds 
unless they agreed to change their laws.
  Moreover, the current bill removes the record-keeping requirements 
altogether from the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. Instead, S. 
254 sets up an entirely new Juvenile Criminal History Block Grant, 
funded at $75 million per year. To qualify for a criminal history 
grant, States would have to promise within three years to keep 
fingerprint supported records of delinquency adjudications of juveniles 
who committed a felony act. No more photographs required. No more 
records of mere arrests required. No more dissemination of petty 
juvenile offense records to schools required. Instead,

[[Page 17480]]

only juvenile delinquency adjudications for murder, armed robbery, rape 
or sexual molestation must be disseminated in the same manner as adult 
records; other juvenile delinquency adjudications records may only be 
used for criminal justice purposes. These limitations are welcome 
changes to the burdensome, over-broad record-keeping requirements in 
the prior version of the Republican juvenile crime bill.
  The eligibility requirements for the Juvenile Accountability Block 
Grant now number only three, including that the State have in place a 
policy of drug testing for appropriate categories of juveniles upon 
arrest.
  Core Protections for Children. Much of the debate over reforming our 
juvenile justice system has focused on how we treat juvenile offenders 
who are held in State custody. Republican efforts to roll back 
protections for children in custody failed in the last Congress. These 
protections were originally put in place when Congress enacted the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA) to 
create a formula grant program for States to improve their juvenile 
justice systems. This Act addressed the horrific conditions in which 
children were being detained by State authorities in close proximity to 
adult inmates--conditions that too often resulted in tragic assaults, 
rapes and suicides of children.
  As the JJDPA has evolved, four core protections have been adopted--
and are working--to protect children from adult inmates and to ensure 
development of alternative placements to adult jails. These four core 
protections for juvenile delinquents are: Separation of juvenile 
offenders from adult inmates in custody (known as sight and sound 
separation); Removal of juveniles from adult jails or lockups, with a 
24-hour exception in rural areas and other exceptions for travel and 
weather related conditions; Deinstitutionalizaton of status offenders; 
and to study and direct prevention efforts toward reducing the 
disproportionate confinement of minority youth in the juvenile justice 
system.
  Over strong objection by most of the Democrats on the Judiciary 
Committee in the last Congress, the earlier bill would have eliminated 
three of the four core protections and substantially weakened the 
``sight and sound'' separation standard for juveniles in State custody. 
At the same time the Committee appeared to acknowledge the wisdom and 
necessity of such requirements when it adopted an amendment requiring 
separation of juveniles and adult inmates in Federal custody.
  This bill, S. 254, was an improvement in its retention of modified 
versions of three out of the four core protections. Specifically, S. 
254 included the sight and sound standard for juveniles in Federal 
custody. The same standard is used to apply to juveniles delinquents in 
State custody.
  Legitimate concerns were raised that the prohibition on physical 
contact in S. 254 would still allow supervised proximity between 
juveniles and adult inmates that is ``brief and incidental or 
accidental,'' since this could be interpreted to allow routine and 
regular--though brief--exposure of children to adult inmates. For 
example, guards could routinely escort children past open adult cells 
multiple times a day on their way to a dining area.
  The Hatch-Leahy managers' amendment made significant progress on the 
``sight and sound separation'' protection and the ``jail removal'' 
protection. Specifically, our amendment made clear that when parents in 
rural areas give their consent to have their children detained in adult 
jails after an arrest, the parents may revoke their consent at any 
time. In addition, the judge who approves the juvenile's detention must 
determine it is in the best interests of the juvenile, and may review 
that detention--as the judge must periodically--in the presence of the 
juvenile.
  The managers' amendment also clarified that juvenile offenders in 
rural areas may be detained in an adult jail for up to 48 hours while 
awaiting a court appearance, but only when no alternative facilities 
are available and appropriate juvenile facilities are too far away to 
make the court appearance or travel is unsafe to undertake.
  The Hatch-Leahy managers' amendment also significantly improved the 
sight and sound separation requirement for juvenile offenders in both 
Federal and State custody. The amendment incorporated the guidance in 
current regulations for keeping juveniles separated from adult 
prisoners. Specifically, the Managers' amendment would require 
separation of juveniles and adult inmates and excuse only ``brief and 
inadvertent or accidental'' proximity in non-residential areas, which 
may include dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health care, 
entry areas, and passageways.
  I was pleased we were able to make this progress. I appreciate that a 
number of Members remain seriously concerned, as do I, about how S. 254 
would change the disproportionate minority confinement protection in 
current law. This bill, S. 254, removes any reference to minorities and 
requires only that efforts be made to reduce over-representation of any 
segment of the population. I was disappointed that Senators Wellstone 
and Kennedy's amendment to restore this protection did not succeed 
during Senate consideration of the bill and looked forward to continued 
discussion and progress on this issue in the conference.
  Prevention. The bill included a $200 million per year Juvenile 
Delinquency Prevention Challenge Grant to fund both primary prevention 
and intervention uses after juveniles have had contact with the 
juvenile justice system. I and a number of other members were concerned 
that in the competition for grant dollars, the primary prevention uses 
would lose out to intervention uses in crucial decisions on how this 
grant money would be spent. With the help of Senator Kohl, we included 
in the Hatch-Leahy managers' amendment a clear earmark that eighty 
percent of the money, or $160 million per year if the program is fully 
funded, is to be used for primary prevention uses and the other twenty 
percent is to be used for intervention uses. Together with the 25 
percent earmark, or about $112 million per year if that program is 
fully funded, for primary prevention in the Juvenile Accountability 
Block Grant that was passed by the Senate in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions 
amendment, this bill now reflects a substantial amount of solid funding 
for primary prevention uses.
  Prosecutors' Grants. I expressed some concern when the Senate passed 
the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment authorizing $50 million per year for 
prosecutors and different kinds of assistance to prosecutors to speed 
up prosecution of juvenile offenders. I pointed out that this amendment 
did not authorize any additional money for judges, public defenders, 
counselors, or corrections officers. The consequence would be to 
exacerbate the backlog in juvenile justice systems rather than helping 
it.
  The managers' amendment fixed that problem by authorizing $50 million 
per year in grants to State juvenile court systems to be used for 
increased resources to State juvenile court judges, juvenile 
prosecutors, juvenile public defenders, and other juvenile court system 
personnel.
  State Advisory Groups. The Senate bill incorporates changes I 
recommended to the earlier version of the bill in the last Congress. I 
have been working to ensure the continued existence and role of State 
Advisory Groups, or SAGs, in the development of State plans for 
addressing juvenile crime and delinquency, and the use of grant funds 
under the JJDPA. The Judiciary Committee in 1997 adopted my amendment 
to preserve SAGs and require representation from a broad range of 
juvenile justice experts from both the public and private sectors.
  While, as introduced, S. 254 preserved SAGs, it eliminated the 
requirement in current law that gives SAGs the opportunity to review 
and comment on a grant award to allow these experts to provide input on 
how best to spend the money. In addition, while the bill authorizes the 
use of grant funds to support the SAG, the bill does require States to 
commit any funds to ensure these groups can function effectively. I am 
pleased that we were able to accept an amendment sponsored by Senators 
Kerrey, Roberts, and others, to ensure appropriate funding of SAGs at

[[Page 17481]]

the State level and to support their annual meetings.
  Protecting Children from Harmful Internet Content. Over the past 
decade, the Internet has grown from relative obscurity to an essential 
commercial and educational tool. This rapid expansion has brought with 
it remarkable gains, but has also created new dangers for our children, 
prompting Congress to struggle with legislation that protects the free 
flow of information, as required by the First Amendment, while at the 
same time shields our children from inappropriate material accessible 
on the Internet.
  I share the concern of many of my colleagues that much of the 
material available on the Internet may not be appropriate for children 
and have joined in the search to find a solution that does not impinge 
on any important constitutional rights or the free flow of information 
on the Internet and avoids the pitfalls inherent in proposals such as 
the Communications Decency Act and other pending proposals. 
Specifically, Senators Hatch and I offered an amendment to S. 254, the 
juvenile justice bill, that was agreed to on May 13, 1999, by a vote of 
100 to 0. Our Internet filtering proposal would leave the solution to 
protecting children in school and libraries from inappropriate online 
materials to local school boards and communities. The Hatch-Leahy 
amendment would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with more 
than 50,000 subscribers to provide residential customers, free or at 
cost, with software or other filtering system that prevents minors from 
accessing inappropriate material on the Internet. A survey would be 
conducted at set intervals after enactment to determine whether ISPs 
are complying with this requirement. The requirement that ISPs provide 
blocking software would become effective only if the majority of 
residential ISP subscribers lack the necessary software within set time 
periods.
  Unfortunately, progress on this Internet filtering proposal has been 
stalled as the majority in Congress has refused to conclude the 
juvenile justice conference. This is just one of the many legislative 
proposals contained in the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill, S. 254, 
designed to help and safeguard our children-- which is why that bill 
passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority over a year ago.
  I commend Senator McCain for his leadership and dedication to this 
subject. I hope that we can work together on this issue since we share 
an appreciation of the Internet as an educational tool and venue for 
free speech, as well as concerns about protecting our children from 
inappropriate material whether they are at home, at school or in a 
library.
  Protecting Children From Guns. Significantly, the Senate amended this 
bill with important gun control measures that we all hope will help 
make this country safer for our children. The bill, as now amended: 
bans the transfer to and possession by juveniles of assault weapons and 
high capacity ammunition clips; increases criminal penalties for 
transfers of handguns, assault weapons, and high capacity ammunition 
clips to juveniles; bans prospective gun sales to juveniles with 
violent crime records; expands the youth crime gun interdiction 
initiative to up to 250 cities by 2003 for tracing of guns used in 
youth crime; and increases federal resources dedicated to enforcement 
of firearms laws by $50 million a year. These common-sense initiatives 
were first included in the comprehensive Leahy law enforcement 
amendment that was tabled by the majority, but were later included in 
successful amendments sponsored by Republican Senators. No matter how 
these provisions were finally included in the bill, they will help keep 
guns out of hands of children and criminals, while protecting the 
rights of law abiding adults to use firearms.
  In addition, through the efforts of Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, 
Kerrey and others, we were able to require background checks for all 
firearm purchases at all gun shows. After three Republican amendments 
failed to close the gun show loophole in the Brady law, and, in fact, 
created many new loopholes in the law, with the help of Vice President 
Gore's tie-breaking vote, a majority in the U.S. Senate voted to close 
the gun show loophole.
  Our country's law enforcement officers have urged Congress for more 
than a year to pass a strong and effective juvenile justice conference 
report. The following law enforcement organizations, representing 
thousands of law enforcement officers, have endorsed the Senate-passed 
gun safety amendments:
  International Association of Chiefs of Police;
  International Brotherhood of Police Officers;
  Police Executive Research Forum;
  Police Foundation;
  Major City Chiefs;
  Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
  National Sheriffs Association;
  National Association of School Resource Officers;
  National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives;
  Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association.
  Our law enforcement officers deserve Congress' help, not the abject 
inaction that has ensued over that last two years.
  I recount a few of the aspects of the Hatch-Leahy juvenile crime bill 
to indicate that it was comprehensive and that it was the result of 
years of work and weeks of Senate debate and amendment. I said at the 
outset of the debate last May 1999 that I would like nothing better 
than to pass responsible and effective juvenile justice legislation. I 
wanted to pass juvenile justice legislation that would be helpful to 
the youngest citizens in this country--not harm them. I wanted to pass 
juvenile justice legislation that assists States and local governments 
in handling juvenile offenders--not impose a ``one-size-fits-all'' 
Washington solution on them. I wanted to prevent juveniles from 
committing crimes, and not just narrowly focus on punishing children. I 
wanted to keep children who may harm others away from guns. This bill 
would have made important contributions in each of these areas.
  At the time the bill was considered by the Senate, in May 1999, the 
Republican Manager of the bill, declared his support for the Senate 
bill and said:

       Littleton was different. The need to do something about the 
     serious problem of youth violence has always been apparent. 
     The tragedy of a month ago gave us the ingenuity and 
     dedication to follow through. . . . I believe that the Senate 
     has crafted a consensus product and one which I intend to 
     support.

  He called the Senate bill ``a testament to those who worked on it and 
a product which, on the whole, will help our young people and do 
something significant about the problems of juvenile crime.'' He 
observed:

       People believe we are powerless to deal with violent 
     juvenile crime and that we are powerless to change our 
     culture. It is this feeling of powerlessness which threatened 
     our collective ambition for meaningful, penetrating solutions 
     in the wake of the Littleton tragedy. I believe the Senate 
     has taken a meaningful step towards shedding this defeatism.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Given the seriousness of our youth violence problem--and 
     the number of warning signs that tragedies will continue 
     unless all of us come together--we must move forward. We 
     should join together and pass this bill.

  I deeply regret that the Republican leadership of this Congress will 
not complete our work by holding the conference, meeting, voting, and 
reporting a final bill to the House and Senate and sending to the 
President a bill that would improve juvenile justice and school safety.
  I commend the Administration for the numerous efforts it has made 
within the limitations of current law. Most recently, the Department of 
Justice has made available a Threat Assessment Perspective on school 
violence developed by the Critical Incident Response Group and National 
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime of the FBI. This follows upon 
the joint Justice and Education Department publication ``Early Warning, 
Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools,'' which was made available 
nationwide in 1998. In addition, the Department of Justice has provided 
important resources through the COPS in Schools Grant Program.

[[Page 17482]]

  In closing, I thank our schools, teachers, parents, and children for 
all they have done in the past 2 years, without the Congress' help, to 
lower the level of violence in our schools. But I regret that this 
Congress has failed to do its work to provide the additional resources 
and reforms that would have been helpful and reassuring to our 
children, parents, grandparents, and teachers at schools. It can be 
better. It is unconscionable if we do not do better.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________