John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of the remaining 3 and ask to be notified. The Harkin amendment makes the current law even worse by imposing a new requirement upon schools that they couldn't remove any child for bringing a gun to school unless they provide special services to the child. I will oppose this amendment. When you tell people that you will make them special for bringing a gun to school, I think you do a great disservice. You are not making victims out of people by pulling them out of school. You are not making them unsafe. If you tell them clearly that if they bring a gun to school that they are not going to be allowed to stay in school, you will make them safer, and you will make the school safer. This is a school safety issue. It is an issue that requires our attention. The simple fact of the matter is, the current law, as applied and as implemented, is a real impediment to school safety. There will be arguments that we have yet to have a student shoot someone under these circumstances. I can tell you that we have come very close. I talked to one school superintendent in my State who had such a student threaten seven other students in the classroom, to kill them. When the student finally shot one of the other students, it wasn't in the classroom. It was off the school premises so that it really didn't qualify under IDEA. But we don't have to wait until there is blood on the blackboard or on the floor of the classroom in order to take steps to make sure we don't have guns in the classroom. The truth of the matter is, we should simply and clearly make it possible on an equal footing to say that no matter who the student is, there are no excuses, there are no special exceptions; if you bring a gun to school, the local school authority should have the opportunity to take that student and to remove that student without regard to other status.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in our amendment, which we just passed in the Senate, Senator Frist and I proposed important changes to federal law to give schools more authority to remove from the classroom any student who brings a gun or firearm to school. Schools need current federal barriers removed so that they can preserve a safe and secure classroom for our children. The Senator from Iowa has proposed an amendment which makes it even more difficult for schools to remove any dangerous student--including one who brings a gun to school--from the classroom. I rise to state my opposition to the Harkin amendment. The Harkin amendment makes the current law even worse by imposing a new requirement upon schools when they desire to remove any child-- disabled or non-disabled--from the classroom for bringing a gun or firearm to school, or for committing any act of violence. The Harkin amendment takes the unprecedented step of telling schools across the country that if they want to remove any child from school-- even a nondisabled student--for possessing a weapon, or for committing any act of violence, schools must provide the child with ``immediate appropriate interventions and services, including mental health interventions and services,'' in order to ``maximize the likelihood that such child shall not engage in such behaviors, or such behaviors do not reoccur.'' This amendment would overturn the discipline policies of schools across the nation, and intrude upon the right of parents, teachers, school administrators, school boards, to set their own discipline policies regarding weapons and violence in schools. Not only this, but it jeopardizes the ability of schools to remove any student from class who has a gun or firearm, and prevents them from keeping their schools safe. The Harkin amendment would also handcuff schools even more than the current IDEA law does regarding removal of disabled students who possess weapons. The Harkin amendment says that a school that takes action to remove a child with a weapon from school ``shall ensure that immediate appropriate interventions and services, including mental health interventions and services,'' are provided to the child. This is a new requirement in addition to current IDEA law. Current IDEA law requires that a school that removes a child from the regular classroom for 45 days for a weapons possession must already conduct a series of procedures in connection with the removal. Let me describe some of these procedures. First, a school must conduct a functional behavioral assessment. Second, it must implement or modify a behavioral intervention plan for the child. Included in this is the requirement that the IEP team must meet to develop or modify an assessment plan to address the behavior at issue. Third, the school must conduct a manifestation determination review to determine if the child's disability caused the behavior at issue. The Harkin amendment adds yet another requirement to the list of procedures that a school must undertake when removing a child with a weapon from the classroom, by requiring that schools ``ensure that immediate appropriate intervention and services, including mental health interventions and services,'' are provided to the child. Why do we need to handcuff schools even more with another procedure? Additionally, the amendment says that these additional interventions and services must be provided ``in order to maximize the likelihood that such child will not engage in such behaviors, or such behaviors do not reoccur.'' We are not simply asking the schools to try to reduce the likelihood of reoccurring behavior: we are requiring them to maximize that likelihood. School principals, administrators, teachers, school boards, and parents have told me about how difficult the current IDEA makes it to discipline students, and especially in the case of guns and firearms. Senator Harkin's amendment adds yet another layer of procedure. Rather than providing schools with more authority to take actions school officials deem appropriate to maintain a safe and secure classroom free from guns and firearms, Senator Harkin's amendment is going backwards from current law by imposing more federal responsibilities. The Harkin amendment's attempt to provide funding for the new procedures required under the amendment is disingenuous. The amendment authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004'' to pay for the ``interventions and services'' that schools must conduct before they can remove a student with a gun from school. If the Senator from Iowa and others were unwilling to vote for giving schools more IDEA funding during debate on the ed-flex bill earlier this session, what makes us think they really would provide more funding at this time? In conclusion, the Harkin amendment actually makes current law worse by imposing a new set of requirements on schools when they need to remove any child with a firearm from the classroom. He would require schools to provide ``interventions and services'' to non-disabled students who are expelled for bringing a gun to school. And, he imposes a new requirement upon schools that take action to remove IDEA students from school for weapons possession. At a time when parents, teachers, school officials, and our children are asking for help in keeping our classrooms safe, we cannot afford to take a step backward and further handcuff schools from taking steps to get guns out of schools. We need to move forward by giving schools more authority to get--and keep--firearms out of the classroom. For these reasons, I oppose the Harkin amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue. I began to be concerned about students carrying guns in and out of our schools quite some time ago. On the Ed-Flex bill, which passed this Senate just a couple months ago, I put an amendment to close another loophole which would allow students who possessed guns in school--not just carried guns to school--to be removed from the school environment. This responsibility for us to close these loopholes is a serious one. It is a responsibility that relates to school safety. That is what we are talking about here. School safety is a responsibility that we can work hard on, and I am glad Senator Frist of Tennessee and I have been able to join on this amendment. It should not have taken this long. This is a simple amendment. This amendment merely allows local schools to treat all children who bring guns to school in the same manner. It does not target children with disabilities--simply not so. It protects children with disabilities. This is not a matter of scapegoating. This does not say that any group of students is subject to more severe punishments than any other group of students. This is a bill that provides for equity, simply saying that principals and superintendents should have the power, without interference from the Federal Government, to remove students from school who come to school with a firearm, an explosive or a gun. I believe we need to make sure we close the loophole in the Federal law that made it very difficult to discipline certain students who came in that setting. There are those who say: Well, the law is this way and the law is that way. And they will argue about how the law is applied here in the Senate Chamber. We have a lot of experience from around the country about how the law is applied in the schools. The Senator from Tennessee has eloquently spoken to the fact that as applied in the schools, you frequently find that individuals who, if they were not the subject of an individualized education program, would be gone for a year because of a mandated expulsion, are back in the classroom within 45 days, in spite of the fact that they brought a gun or a bomb to school. It is simply our intention to let local school boards and school officials decide how they should be able to make the school a safe place and not to reinsert a student in the school environment who has threatened the safety and security of the school by bringing a bomb or a gun to school. We must have zero tolerance for guns in school. I think we must let school officials decide on discipline policies. We should not have taken this long on this amendment, but I am glad that we are at this point. After we vote on this amendment, there is a consent decree which is going to allow the Harkin amendment to be voted on.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of final passage and explain why I plan to vote for final passage of S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. At the outset, I must make clear that I do not support every provision in this bill. There is much in this bill that is simply extraneous--provisions that do not address the problem of youth violence. Moreover, there are items included in this bill by amendment that I opposed. There are also items that were included through the manager's amendment, such as the creation of new federal judgeships, that I oppose. However, there are many provisions in this bill that I have long championed and have worked hard to include in the bill. Let me briefly summarize these key provisions of this law: ashcroft provisions in S. 254 There are four main Ashcroft initiatives in the core Senate juvenile justice bill, S. 254. Those provisions are: (1) Trying juveniles as adults on the federal level, (2) targeting adults who use juveniles through increased penalties, (3) funding for improving juvenile record system and incentives for recordsharing, and (4) Charitable choice--preventing discrimination against faith-based organizations that stand ready to provide counseling to troubled youth. First, the core bill makes it easier for federal prosecutors to try juveniles as adults in federal court. Specifically, the bill provides local United States Attorneys with new authority to try juveniles 14 and older who commit violent federal crimes and federal drug crimes as adults. This provision is an important improvement in the law. Violent federal crimes and major federal drug crimes are not youthful indiscretions or juvenile pranks--these are serious adult crimes. The bill makes important steps to ensure that in the federal system juveniles who commit adult crimes do adult time. Second, the core bill also targets adults who would exploit children and ensnare them into a life of crime. One sad consequence of a juvenile justice system that treats juvenile crime less seriously than adult crime is that adults try to game the system by using juveniles to perform criminal tasks with the greatest risk of detection. Adults use children as drug runners or couriers precisely because the children are likely to end up back on the street even if they are caught. The core bill addresses this problem by including two provisions from my Protect Children from Violence Act, S. 2023, from the last Congress. Specifically, section 202 increases the mandatory minimums for adults who use juveniles to commit drug crimes from 1 year to 3 years for first-time offenders and from 1 year to 5 years for repeat offenders. Section 203 doubles the penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit crimes of violence and trebles penalties for repeat offenders. The core bill also includes important provisions to facilitate the sharing of juvenile criminal records. This legislation encourages States to keep records on violent juveniles that are the equivalent of the records kept for adults committing comparable crimes. In addition, the bill conditions the availability of federal funds on States' participation in a nationwide system for collecting and sharing juvenile criminal records. Under the bill, state authorities must make these criminal records available to federal and state law enforcement officials and school officials to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. Providing judges and school officials with accurate records is a critical step in preventing tragedies. School officials and judges have a right and a need to know when they are dealing with dangerous juveniles. Providing accurate records is not only an important role for the government, it is a role that only the federal government can fulfill. Violent juveniles routinely cross state lines. The federal government has an important role in ensuring that their criminal records cross state lines with them. Finally, the core bill includes my provision ensuring that faith- based organizations have an equal opportunity to provide services to at-risk youth. The experience of the past decade has made clear that government does not have all the answers for what ails our culture. No organizations should be excluded from the process of trying to heal our violent culture, let alone faith-based organizations. The ``charitable choice'' provisions in the bill do not provide for any special treatment for faith-based organizations, but they do ensure that faith- based groups will not be arbitrarily excluded when the government turns to non-governmental organizations to deal with at-risk juveniles. The bill in its current form also includes a number of important provisions that were added by amendment. These include: Semi-automatic assault rifles ban for juveniles. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted this Ashcroft amendment. The amendment had three major provisions: (1) Ban on juvenile possession of semi-automatic assault rifles. This provision extends the current limitations (subject to the current exceptions) on youth possession of handguns to semi-automatic assault weapons. The provision does not affect a juvenile's right to possess hunting rifles. (2) Requirement that juveniles be tried as adults for weapons violations in a school zone. Juveniles who commit firearms violations near a school zone must be sent a clear message--such actions will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. (3) Increased penalties for unlawfully transferring a firearm to a juvenile with knowledge that it will be used in a crime of violence. Ashcroft education package The Senate overwhelmingly approved this comprehensive amendment which reflects not only specific Ashcroft initiatives but the work product of the Republican Education Task Force, which Senator Ashcroft chaired. The major Ashcroft initiatives in the package include: (1) Flexibility for local schools to address school violence. This provision provides schools with the flexibility to use existing education funds, and the new education funds included in the Republican budget, to address security concerns as they see fit. Permissible uses include everything from the installation of metal detectors, to the formulation of inter-agency task forces, to the introduction of school uniform policies. (2) School uniforms. Another Ashcroft provision makes clear that nothing in federal law prevents local school districts from instituting school uniform policies. (3) School records. Another provision makes clear that student disciplinary records should follow students to a new school, without regard to whether it is public or private. Teachers and administrators need to know who they are dealing with and whether they have security risks in their midst. frist-Ashcroft idea amendment This amendment removes a loophole in federal law that prevents States from disciplining an IDEA student in the same manner as a non-IDEA student, if an IDEA student brings a gun to school. The Senate passed this common sense amendment 74-25. A number of my colleagues also added my initiatives to the bill through their own amendments. These include: hatch/craig comprehensive crime package This amendment included a number of Ashcroft mandatory minimums. Specifically, Ashcroft provisions in the bill raised mandatory minimums: (1) From 1 to 3 years for distributing drugs near a school zone (from 1 to 5 years for subsequent offenses). This provision was adopted from Ashcroft's Protect Children from Violence Act, S. 2023. (2) From 1 to 3 years for distributing drugs to a juvenile (1 to 5 years for subsequent offenses). This provision was adopted from Ashcroft's Protect Children from Violence Act, S. 2023. (3) From 7 to 10 years for brandishing a firearm during the commission of a federal crime. This provision was adopted from Ashcroft's Juvenile Misuse of Firearms Prevention Act, S. 994. (4) From 10 to 12 years for discharging a firearm during the commission of a federal crime. This provision was adopted from Ashcroft's Juvenile Misuse of Firearms Prevention Act, S. 994. The amendment also included two new Ashcroft mandatory minimum sentences also adopted from S. 994: (1) A 15-year mandatory minimum for maiming or injuring someone with a firearm during the commission of a federal crime (2) A 5-year mandatory minimum for transferring a firearm with knowledge that it will be used in a crime of violence. hatch/feinstein gang amendment The Senate also overwhelmingly passed the Hatch-Feinstein amendment designed to target and punish gang violence. The amendment included many provisions long-championed by Ashcroft, including almost the entirety of the gang subtitle of Ashcroft's ``Protect Children from Violence Act,'' S. 538, introduced on March 4, 1999. Specifically, the amendment included the following Ashcroft provisions: enhanced sentences for crimes committed as part of gang violence, new crimes for interstate gang activities, the treatment of juvenile crimes as adult crimes for purposes of the federal laws imposing severe penalties on armed career criminals, and increased penalties for witness tampering. All of these provisions were included in the ``Combating Gang Violence'' subtitle of Ashcroft's Juvenile Crime bill. In summary, this is not a perfect bill. There is much that is extraneous and some that is misguided. I am hopeful some of these provisions will be removed in conference. On balance, however, this bill will help make our schools places of learning, not places of fear.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the $15 billion supplemental appropriations conference report before us. The supplemental spends far more than is necessary to support our effort in Kosovo and, worse, will take vitally needed money out of the Social Security surplus, thereby raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Protecting the Social Security trust fund is one of my highest priorities. The Social Security system is expected to go into deficit in 2014 and we will need every dollar of that surplus today in order to be prepared for the tomorrows ahead of us. Until this point, the Senate has been headed in the right direction on Social Security. The Budget Resolution, which I strongly supported, called for reduced debt and taxes, increased funding for education and national defense, and maintaining the spending caps so necessary to control spending. Perhaps most importantly, the budget resolution built in on-budget surpluses from the year 2001 and beyond. This is significant because surpluses that are accumulating in the Social Security Trust Funds will no longer be used to finance on-budget operations of government. Social Security surpluses should not be used to finance deficits in the rest of government. The Budget Resolution stood in stark contrast to President Clinton's budget, which, over the next five years, proposed spending $158 billion of the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security programs. The Budget Resolution, in addition to preserving every penny of Social Security surpluses, also contained procedural hurdles blocking future budgets from spending Social Security surpluses. These procedures included a point of order against on-budget deficits and an amendment calling for reducing the debt ceiling by the amount of the Social Security surplus--the lockbox provision. The Senate voted in favor of both the point of order and the lockbox by unanimous votes during the budget resolution. In addition, the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox legislation, which is still pending in the Senate, would put these procedures into law, and ensure that Congress could not spend the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security purposes. Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations package before us would undo some of the good work that we have already done this session. By not offsetting $13 billion of the spending, the supplemental takes money from the Social Security surpluses, money that is necessary to protect the Social Security trust funds. Thus far, Congress has been committed to stopping the raid on Social Security. This Congress has passed a budget that is balanced without using Social Security funds. This conference report, however, not only spends Social Security funds, but also contains $1.2 billion in traditional pork spending. I refer to such spending as $45 million for Census funding, $3.76 million for the House page dormitory, and $1.8 million for the O'Neill House building. If this bill were just for Kosovo and true emergency spending, I would vote for it. If this bill were fully offset, I would vote for it. But this bill is neither all emergency nor all offset. This bill, like the $21 billion omnibus appropriation last fall, is an abrogation of our responsibility to protect the Social Security surplus. Mr. President, this is not the way that we should handle Congress' responsibility over the federal purse strings. If we face real emergencies, we should fund those emergencies. But funding those emergencies is not free. We need to pay for all spending, emergency or not. This is why I support Senator Enzi's attempt to make sure that this entire appropriation is offset. If we do not offset our spending, the money comes out of the Social Security surplus. There is no getting around this fact. We must pay for any new funding. If we do not pay for it, it comes out of the Social Security surplus. The Social Security program is too important to be raided. While I recognize the importance of emergency funding, particularly for Kosovo, I also recognize that spending needs to be paid for. Mr. President, this request is not unreasonable. All across this great land, when families face unexpected expenses, they must offset their spending by readjusting their priorities. No family in America would react to an unexpected crisis by going out and spending more money on other discretionary, non-budgeted items. All I am asking is that the Congress do the same. This supplemental spends too much money and offsets too little of it. If we are to keep our financial house in order, and to protect the Social Security trust funds, it is time that we in Congress started to change our behavior. If we are to maintain our Social Security obligations, we need to learn how to spend less money, and offset more. It is with regret that I feel obligated to oppose this conference report.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thousands of dollars?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, I want to indicate that this is about the fourth time we have displaced this amendment, which I have been working on in conjunction with Senator Frist. This amendment has been the pending business since last Friday. This is not a novel amendment. I just want to indicate that I intend to get a vote on this amendment. Votes have been taken on amendments on both sides. The right way to resolve any dispute on this amendment is to vote on it. I have been ready to vote on this amendment for quite some time. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle knows what the amendment is about. I would just indicate that when this amendment comes back up I will persist in expecting the same courtesy that this body has accorded all other amendments to be accorded to this amendment, and I will work hard to make sure we have an opportunity to vote on it.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Under an IEP, you have an initial 10-day suspension, and legal proceedings start to determine whether or not the carrying of the gun, brandishing of the gun, or bringing the pipe bomb or a firearm into the classroom was a manifestation of your disability?

Mr. ASHCROFT. That lasts 45 days, according to the Senator from Iowa, and you have to have another hearing to have another 45 days.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Sure.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Now, these determination proceedings, do they involve substantial expense for the school?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it possible to modify this consent request to say the Frist-Ashcroft amendment would be the pending business at the conclusion of this vote, and no later at the onset of the business tomorrow morning?

Mr. ASHCROFT. They have responsibilities when they do that that they don't have with other students.

Mr. ASHCROFT. When you talk about a manifestation of a disability, what does that mean? That you bring a gun to school because you are disabled? Is that what you are saying? Or could that mean because you are severely emotionally disturbed, for instance?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, frankly, this is addressing the amendment which is pending, and it is rather complex. I would be grateful for an opportunity to look at this agreement if it is written up. I would like to have a chance to consider it.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The theory of the legislation probably provides a basis for having this series of bureaucratic trials and hearings every 45 days as people are litigating whether or not you could keep a very, very dangerous person out of school.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to get back to the fundamental point, and there are about three of them. I will try to make these quickly: One, that the law does provide for differential treatment. If it didn't provide for differential treatment, we wouldn't have the law. As a matter of fact, part of it was in response to this Fourth Circuit opinion, and the Congress acted. In so providing, we created a big loophole for guns and firearms in the school. We basically provided a basis for differential treatment for people who are the subject of IEPs, these special education students, who might be--I forget what the Senator from Alabama said--emotionally distressed, or troubled, or severely emotionally distressed. They might be able to come to school and have different treatment if they carry a gun to school than if someone else does. The simple fact is that the Senator from Tennessee and I believe we ought to give authority to school principals to deal with such cases as forthrightly as they do with other cases. This is in light of the fact that when you get out, not in the Chamber of the Senate, not in the theory of the bureaucracy, but when you get out into local schools, the law operates to constrain those school officials to have students come back to school who have carried guns to school and pipe bombs to school. They have carried them in, and it is not in the best interest, according to school officials, to have the students back in, but they are back in. We simply want to liberate school principals and school officials to say to people who bring guns and pipe bombs, firearms, to school, you can't do that, you are out until we say you can come back, in the same way we say that under the Gun-Free Schools Act, which is the Federal Government's mandate, students are entitled to go to school in a place that is not full of guns and firearms. I thank the Senator from Vermont for according me this opportunity to make that simple statement, that we want to provide parity for students: No matter who you are, when you bring firearms and guns to school, we want the principal to be able to send you home.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is related to whether or not his disability or special education status caused or was related to the bringing and brandishing of the gun?

Mr. ASHCROFT. How nice.

Mr. ASHCROFT. In all deference to the Senator, the law is clear and the law provides substantial disparate or different treatment, and the treatment which is different causes very serious problems in the real world. It causes problems because we let students who bring guns into school back into the school system because of this system.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, isn't it?

Mr. ASHCROFT. On what basis does the court say they are entitled to an IEP?