John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, developing trade policy that will increase Americans' competitiveness in the 21st century must be a priority of this Congress and of the administration. That is why I rise today, joined by Senators Daniel Inouye, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, Pat Roberts, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Enzi, to introduce the World Trade Organization Enforcement Act of 1999. It is a bill that will increase transparency and give the public more input into the dispute settlement process of the WTO. It is analogous to a ``Sunshine Law'' for the WTO. The United States plays a major role in leading the world and shaping its economy and must continue to do so. We must be leaders, not simply participants. Our leadership as a country will be effective only if our trade policy is clearly defined and is based on the vital interests of the American people, because if Americans do not accept our leadership on trade policy, neither will the rest of the world. Our success of more than 200 years has been because American is a nation dedicated to We the People. We are a nation whose greatness flows not from government, but from the creativity and ingenuity of the American people. Our service providers, manufacturers, retailers, farmers and ranchers, and investors are top notch compared with their competitors, and it is time for us in public service to lay aside the values and priorities of Washington, D.C., and promote the values and priorities of the American people. As I have traveled around Missouri, one thing is clear: citizens want America to be defined today as she was 100-plus years ago. We have been known as a land of ascending opportunity, that every generation in America has more opportunity than the previous generation. This is a definition of America that we must maintain--``the best is yet to come.'' Already, U.S. companies are first-class in their production, processing, and marketing at home and abroad--always responding to the challenges of our competitive free-market system. While the United States can produce more goods and provide more services than any other country, we account for only five percent of the world's consuming population. That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our borders--this is an astounding statistic when we put it in terms of creating opportunities. For example, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production is exported, but in September of last year, American farmers and ranchers faced the first monthly trade deficit of U.S. farm and food products since the United States began tracking trade data in 1941. Our farmers, or any other sector, simply will not succeed if they face descending opportunity. With manufacturing productivity increasing and with the consuming capacity of the world largely outside of our borders, our companies need equally increasing access to foreign demand. The prosperity of the next generation of Americans is tied to our current competitiveness in global markets. We must develop policies that will shape opportunities for the 21st century--opening new markets, ensuring that our trading partners live up to their commitments, and to the greatest extent possible avoiding sanctions that hurt only our market opportunities abroad. I still believe we must make a concerted effort to pass fast track trade negotiating authority. Because fast track has languished, U.S. businesses are increasingly being put at a competitive disadvantage. While Canada has already concluded a free trade agreement with Chile, and Mexico is expanding its free trade arrangement with Chile, the United States lags behind. Our companies clearly are being put at a competitive disadvantage in our own hemisphere. America must lead, not follow--in our back yard and around the world. As we approach the next round of negotiations in the WTO, fast track is crucial to U.S. businesses. Clearly, trade negotiations designed to reduce or eliminate barriers and trade distorting practices have benefited our companies and our economy, and we need to continue our leadership role in multiple trade fora. However, support for fast track and new negotiations is tied in the public mind to the benefit they receive from existing trade agreements. It is of utmost importance that the United States closely monitor and vigorously enforce our trade agreements. The private sector must be able to rely on U.S. agreements to be productive and long-lasting. Opening foreign markets looms before us as a brick barricade. With the same will and authority of President Reagan before the Berlin Wall when he said--``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''--we must face head-on the barricades before our exporters. It's not an easy task, but then again, neither was dismantling the Evil Empire. As John Wayne said in ``The Big Trail'': ``No great trail is ever blazed without hardship. You've got to fight. That's life.'' Just last week, the Europeans stood on their massive wall of protectionism built across the trail of free trade and simply rejected U.S. beef, even in the face of having lost the WTO case. We've got a trail to blaze--the Europeans cannot be allowed to make a mockery of the competitive spirit of our cattle ranchers. In this case, results, not words, count the most. Failing to implement agreements already negotiated creates an environment of descending opportunity. It is imperative, therefore, that the Administration follow through with enforcing the decisions the U.S. has won in the WTO. What good is winning a case if we are unable to enforce the judgment? It is clear that the most contentious issues ever to be brought before the WTO--whether it is negotiating new agreements or suing the dispute settlement process to enforce existing ones--have been about the agricultural policies of the United States and the European Union. One of the significant changes in the dispute settlement process in 1994 was that panels would be set up and panel decisions would be adopted but for a consensus against doing so. Also, strict time lines were built into the process. Soon thereafter, the U.S. took two agriculture cases against the EU through the new WTO dispute process--the banana case and the beef case (which had already been before the GATT panel). The new dispute settlement changes in the WTO worked, and the United States won these two agriculture cases without the EU having the ability to block unilaterally the cases from moving forward. For every triumph, however, the United States has suffered multiple defeats. Our most recent triumphs were getting the EU to accept a WTO dispute settlement process that is quick and binding, and winning agriculture cases against the EU in that settlement process. However, the EU is now denying U.S. farmers and ranchers the benefits of the WTO cases we won by stalling endlessly in the implementation of those decisions. If the EU, or any other country, is allowed to use delaying tactics, there could be detrimental effects on these agriculture cases and on future cases regardless of the sector litigated. Also, the public support for the WTO system and its ability to benefit U.S. interests will be undermined. It is essential that the administration make the EU beef ban a top priority. The United States has won this case against the EU numerous times, and we are clearly within our rights to benefit from the cases we litigate and win. We must take the position that if the EU insists on ``paying'' for its protectionism, the EU should ``pay'' at the highest levels allowable and on products that will hurt it the most. While U.S. ranchers can never be compensated fully for the EU's protectionist policies, the value of concessions withdrawn from the EU must at least equal the value of the beef producers current damage. Beef producers in Missouri will not benefit if the level of retaliation is not such that will induce the EU to change its protectionist policies. A strong response to the EU's treatment of U.S. agricultural products is long overdue. We must have reciprocity in our cross-Atlantic agricultural trade. If U.S. meat is not welcome in the EU, then EU meat should not be accepted in the United States. The EU's repeated, damaging actions against America's cattlemen must not go unaswered--that is why I have called on the Administration to retaliate with authority and that is why I am introducing the WTO Enforcement Act. The WTO Enforcement Act has two major objectives: ensure that the U.S. government affords adequate transparency and public participation in the U.S. decision-making process, and begin multilateral negotiations with a view toward incorporating more transparency and consultation in the multilateral context of the WTO dispute settlement process. If the farm groups and U.S. companies were to increase their public comment in the implementation and post-implementation stages of the WTO dispute settlement process, this will heighten the pressure on the foreign country to comply with the Panel decisions. Currently, while the USTR, Congress, and industry groups consult during the implementation stages of Panel decisions, making the comment and reporting requirements more established and anticipated will increase accountability. The WTO system needs to be given a chance to work, but the best way to do so is to increase pressure on those countries that would try to circumvent the implementation of panels. This is imperative not only for agriculture and our relations with the EU, it could affect all sectors that are litigated under the WTO dispute settlement process. The proposed modifications to U.S. domestic rules regarding dispute settlement will prove more effective if the losing party to a WTO dispute provides to the winning party its plan to comply with the WTO decision and if the winning party is given meaningfully opportunity to comment on the plan prior to its implementation. The WTO is currently in the midst of a review of the organization's dispute settlement procedures. Therefore, under the WTO Enforcement Act, the United States must request reforms that would oblige member government's to submit a proposed remedy well in advance of the deadline to comply to the decision and as well as consult with the other parties to the proceeding on the proposal. If the WTO Enforcement Act is passed, the U.S. public would be able to obtain more information about the foreign government's plans for compliance with WTO panel decisions and would be afforded a more formal opportunity to comment on how the process is working. If we negotiate trade agreements for American citizens wishing to do business in foreign markets, they have every right to voice their support for or objections to the way foreign governments or the U.S. government is making those agreements beneficial. It is time for us to enact policies that reflect our support for U.S. companies' efforts to reach their competitive potential internationally and policies that create ascending opportunity for Americans for the 21st century so that we can say, with confidence, ``the best is yet to come.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to join every member of this body in mourning the loss of Admiral James W. ``Bud'' Nance. His loss is felt especially among those Members and staff who worked closely with the Admiral on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is survived by his wife of 53 years, four children, and seven grandchildren. The much-celebrated friendship between Admiral Nance and Senator Jesse Helms set the tone for the work of the Foreign Relations Committee. Few committee chairmen have known their staff directors since first grade. The level of trust between those two elevated the work of the Committee to a distinct level. Born in 1921 in Monroe, North Carolina, Admiral Nance went on to graduate from the Naval Academy, fight in World War II, and serve 35 years in the U.S. Navy. That was all before he began his second career after 1979 in the Legislative and Executive branches of Government. In the Navy, the Admiral was a first rate aviator, involved in some of the more dangerous testing and developing programs for naval fighters. He served as Commanding Officer of the Attack Carrier Air Wing Eight aboard the U.S.S. Forrestal and later became the Commanding Officer of that aircraft carrier--a ship that had more sailors (5,000) than his hometown of Monroe, North Carolina. The Admiral concluded his naval career as Assistant Vice Chief of Naval Operations and Director of Naval Administration. He went on to serve as a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1979-80 and Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs under President Reagan. In that capacity, he was responsible for managing the entire staff of the National Security Council at the White House. Admiral Nance returned specifically to naval aviation by running Boeing's Navy Systems program from 1983 to 1990. In 1991, he returned to the Foreign Relations Committee as Deputy Staff Director for the Minority and has served the last four years as Majority Staff Director for the Committee. The Admiral's commitment to service can be seen throughout his life, and that was certainly the case in the four years that I worked with him as a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee. In assuming the position of Staff Director, Admiral Nance told Senator Helms he viewed the job as a service to his country and wanted no compensation. Senate rules required some level of compensation to be an official Senate employee, however, so Admiral Nance began his tenure with the exorbitant income of $3.36 a week. When Congress became bound by the laws of the land, Senator Helms was forced to raise Admiral Nance's salary to minimum wage. We smile as we reflect on the Admiral's paltry salary, but what a selfless display of service that was to his country and this body. Earning the minimum wage was not a publicity stunt. Admiral Nance operated behind the scenes almost entirely. This man was truly motivated by gratitude to the United States. Admiral Nance was a dedicated conservative, and his conservatism was rooted in respect for his fellow man and an unshakeable commitment to the best interests of his country. His partisanship was good-humored and balanced. The Admiral had a verse displayed prominently in his office from Ecclesiastes which read ``The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.'' Whether as a formidable opponent or valued ally in the work of the Senate, Admiral Nance respected--and won the respect of--all members of the Foreign Relations Committee. This man was a warrior his entire life, placing himself in harm's way for the good of his country. He died as he lived--he fought to the very end. Many Members of this body probably are not aware of the health difficulties he struggled with during his entire tenure as Staff Director of the Foreign Relations Committee. It would have been easy to walk away. There was a reason he stayed, though. Admiral Nance was a true American. His life was a testament to the ideals which have made this country great. He believed in the United States of America. He believed in prudent and decisive American leadership in the world. He believed in what this country stood for and what it could accomplish. As we reflect on his life in the coming days, may each of us gain a renewed sense of commitment to preserve the blessings of freedom which the Admiral defended. My sympathies are with the Admiral's wife Mary Lyda and their children. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time if the other side is prepared to yield back theirs.

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.

Mr. ASHCROFT. First of all, this amendment refers to children 14 or over, not under the age of 14.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, all across our Nation, local schools are trying to ensure that tragedies like the one in Littleton do not happen again. The Federal Government in Washington is not in a position to make the best decisions for those local schools. No government--let alone the Federal Government--can produce a single solution, to prevent school violence. The problems have deeper roots in our culture. Nonetheless, there are some important steps we can take to help local school districts and parents make schools safer. In a few moments, I will send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Members of the Youth Violence Education task force, a task force which I helped Chair, that will help ensure that our schools once again become safe havens, rather than places of jeopardy. I thank those who came together on this task force to contribute to the amendment. Specifically, Senators Hutchinson, DeWine, Gregg, Helms, Coverdell, Allard, and Abraham. This package is comprehensive in that it contains numerous provisions that give tools to schools and communities to prevent youth violence. First and foremost, we need to put local schools at the top of our agenda and free them to use Federal money where it will do the most good to prevent future violence. Time and experience have exposed as an utter falsehood the notion that we know what is best in every educational setting. One-size-fits-all regulations won't help local schools reduce their particular risks or solve their unique problems. As we provide resources, we need to provide freedom. The cornerstone of our education amendment would open up existing Department of Education funds to allow school districts new options for putting Federal dollars to work. Under this amendment, schools can choose where best to spend Federal resources under titles IV and VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--specifically, the Safe and Drug Free Schools program, and Innovative Educational Program Strategies funds. Schools can decide whether to spend the money on training, equipment, school assessments, or more personnel. For example, under this amendment, local school districts could use Federal money for purchasing metal detectors and surveillance cameras, for training school officials in recognizing and averting potentially dangerous situations, or for introducing school uniform policies, if they so chose. Local school districts would remain free to choose the use that best addresses local needs. The Federal Government provides a great deal of money for education and related funding. The fiscal year 2000 budget resolution conference report called for $66.3 billion in education and related funding for fiscal year 2000; $404.1 billion over 5 years; and $782.4 billion over 10 years. Compared to current spending levels, this represents an increase of $8.1 billion over 5 years and $33 billion over 10 years. As a result of this budget resolution, Congress will be providing much-needed funding to education programs in fiscal year 2000. While we know that local schools need our help, we do not always know how best to provide that help. We need to provide the opportunity and authority for local schools to do what they can to improve the climate for safe and secure learning environments on campuses. For this reason, this amendment will give schools the flexibility they need to best provide for the safety and security of their students. Another component of this amendment would clarify that nothing in the Federal law stands in the way of local decisions to introduce a dress code or school uniform policy--not to mandate from Washington, but make it clear that the Federal law does not prevent it or preclude it. To make sure that we don't constrain efforts to build working communities, this legislation makes it abundantly clear that Federal law does not prohibit schools from instituting dress codes. Dress codes can create a sense of belonging and unity among students and help eliminate the division of schools according to cliques. By doing so, dress codes can help schools have a sense of community among students, and Federal law should not block local educators from fostering this sense of community. In Kansas City, MO, the George Washington Carver Elementary School, a magnet school, established a dress code policy for the 320 elementary school students in 1990. The results are positive. Philomina Harshaw, the principal for all 6 years that Carver has had uniforms, observed that a new sense of calmness exists throughout the school after students began wearing uniforms. ``The students feel good about themselves, as uniforms build a sense of pride,'' she has reported. Long Beach, CA, has a school uniform in all its elementary and middle schools. District officials found in the year following the implementation of the school uniform policy, overall school crime decreased 36 percent, fights decreased 51 percent, sex offenses decreased 74 percent, weapons offenses decreased 50 percent, assault and battery offenses decreased 34 percent, and vandalism decreased 18 percent, sending a clear message that some of the resources which can be used to implement such a policy is sending a clear message of freedom to our schools that they are free to act in the best interests of their students. The federal government should be in a position to assist schools in making decisions that they believe can make a difference, particularly when the record is clear about the difference made in other districts. In addition, this task force, which was formed to look at our federal education policy to see if anything could be done to reduce the impact of violence in schools, included in the amendment a provision which provides certain liability protections for school personnel when they undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline, and a safe educational environment. This provision, to which Senator Coverdell will speak shortly, is based upon similar liability protections for volunteers that was signed into law, as well as a number of state laws that offer teachers limited civil liability against frivolous and arbitrary lawsuits. We must assure that teachers and other school personnel are able to do what is necessary to provide a safe and stable learning environment for all students. This amendment also includes language that makes certain that school discipline records follow a student when a student transfers to another public or private school. The receiving school should have information about the discipline records of a student coming into that school environment. In the last Congress I sponsored an amendment that ensured that juvenile records were available to schools when students transferred. My involvement on this issue began with the 1995 killing of 15-year- old Christine Smetzer in a restroom at McCluer North High School in St. Louis County. The male special education student convicted of murdering Smetzer had a juvenile record and had been caught in the women's restroom at a previous school. However, teachers and administrators at McCluer North say they were not informed of the student's record when he transferred to their school. It was tragic the transfer didn't involve the disciplinary records, because it cost Christine Smetzer her life. In response, I secured a provision in the law requiring that, under IDEA, student disciplinary records must transfer to a new school when the student goes to a new school. The language in the task force amendment expands that provision, so that any student's discipline record--whether or not the student is served under IDEA--will be available to any school--public or private-- to which the student transfers. We need to send all the information we can about a student to a new school when a person transfers. These provisions and others were developed by the Republican Education Task Force which I chaired. I want to again thank my colleagues who worked with me on the Task Force--Senators DeWine and Hutchinson, Gregg, Coverdell, and Helms. I look forward to working with them to ensure that these proposals are included in the final bill. It is in response to these considerations. As a result of the work product of this task force, we developed a package of considerations in an amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I thank you. I thank the Senator from Utah for his kindness in allowing me this opportunity to address what I consider to be a very serious national problem. It is a problem of the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crime. First, I would like to address my amendment that gives States incentives to try armed and violent juveniles as adults. That is amendment No. 348. I thank Senator Sessions for his outstanding leadership on this problem. He has traveled far and wide across the country. His experience as an attorney general, his experience as a U.S. attorney, is most valuable in helping us approach this problem with the kind of sensibility that I think will give us an opportunity to make a real difference. It seems that nearly every day we hear encouraging news about the progress we are making in the fight against crime. There is no doubt that this is good news. But reports about reductions in the crime rate obscure two unfortunate realities: First, although the rate of crime has dropped over the past few years, the level of crime remains far too high. The rate may have gone down but crime is still too high. Second, whatever progress has been made in the reduction of overall crime rates, we are still confronted with a serious problem with violent juvenile crime. Statistics about crime rates are useful, but what really matters is the level of violent crime. Let me just give you an example. On last Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down almost 200 points. If we were to focus on that fact alone, it would appear that the stock market was down, when in fact the Dow is near its all time record high. The same is true of crime, especially juvenile crime. We had a little dip in crime recently. But juvenile crime and violent juvenile crime are still very high. Although the most recent data show some drops in the crime rate, the overall level of crime, especially juvenile crime is unacceptably high. There are about as many violent crimes committed today as in 1987. The number of violent juvenile crimes is at roughly the 1992 level and at 150 percent of the 1987 level. I do not think anyone thought they were safe or secure enough in 1987 or in 1992, that we could afford to get to be 150 percent of that level, which was the 1992 level, and that is the level to which we have returned. But it is still far above a level acceptable in our culture. Statistics about crime rates also mask the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crimes. Seventeen percent of all forcible rapes, 50 percent of all arsons and 37 percent of all burglaries are committed by juveniles. Finally, the recent dip in crime rates is cold comfort for victims of violent crimes. My constituents in Missouri continually identify violent juvenile crime as a paramount concern, and you only have to read the newspaper to understand why. When parents read in the newspaper about a 16-year-old who raped four young girls in St. Charles County, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. When parents in Hazelwood read about a 13-year-old convicted of murder for fracturing his victim's skull with the butt of a sawed-off shotgun, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. And when people in Poplar Bluff read about a 16-year-old, encouraged by his 20-year-old accomplice, who held a pizza delivery man at the point of a shotgun to steal $32, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. Madam President, that is precisely what we need to do. We need to target violent juvenile crime. We need to update our current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. We must treat the most violent juvenile offenders as adults and punish them as adults. For too long now we have treated juvenile crime as something less than real crime. Even the language we use--referring to adult crimes, but to acts of juvenile delinquency--suggests that juvenile crime is not real crime. To those young girls who were raped, to those individuals who are murdered, to their families, these crimes are real crimes. We are not talking about spitballs in the hall or the old Charlie Brown song of the 1950s. We are talking about murder, assault, and rape. And I assure you that for the victims of these crimes, the crimes are all too real-- no less so because the perpetrator was under eighteen. The time has come to take junveile crime seriously and protect our children from violence. Juveniles are increasingly committing adult crimes. What is more, all too often, juveniles are using adult means to facilitate these crimes. Armed crime among juveniles is at unacceptably high levels. These adult crimes committed with adult means cannot be dismissed as youthful indiscretions. They cannot be dismissed as delinquencies or status offenses. These are crimes. These are horrendous crimes. People lose their lives. People are victims of serious assaults, and the crimes should be treated and prosecuted as adult crimes. Accordingly, 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 fourteen use firearms to commit murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, armed assault, and major drug crimes. We need to send a message that crimes committed with firearms will be prosecuted and taken seriously. This administration has dropped the ball in prosecuting the Federal gun laws. We tried to address this by funding firearm prosecutions in the Hatch/Craig amendment--this is the so-called project CUFF. Having sent a message to the administration to prosecute Federal gun crimes, now is the time to send a message to the States--violent gun crimes are serious ``adult'' crimes and deserve ``adult'' time. In the ``juvenile Brady'' provisions in the core bill, we are treating juveniles as adults for purposes of preventing gun ownership in the future, just like if you commit a felony as an adult, you disqualify yourself from owning guns in the future. There is no basis for treating juveniles as anything but adults when they use firearms to commit violent crimes. 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. This is not a direct mandate on States. The amendment simply says that the new pot of Federal money authorized by this bill--the juvenile accountability block grants--will only be available to States that try juveniles as adults. In short, this is an incentive tied to new money that is designed to curtail the violent juvenile crime in this country, not a mandate to the States. It is ironic that some of the same individuals who clamor now for Federal gun control object to this proposal on the grounds of federalism. They say the Federal Government has no business being involved here and encouraging States to take a serious approach. The Federal Government has long asserted a role in policing crimes committed with firearms. The entirety of chapter 44 of title 18 of the United States Code is a testament to the Federal interest in policing crimes committed with firearms. Rather than following the lead of chapter 44 in directly criminalizing firearm offenses for juveniles, this amendment takes the less drastic step by encouraging States to treat violent juvenile offenses committed with a firearm as seriously as the same offense would be if committed by an adult. States remain free to define the elements of and set the penalties for the underlying crimes. We simply ask, as a condition for being the recipient of Federal funds targeted on reducing serious violent juvenile crime, that States treat violent juvenile firearm offenses as seriously as adult firearms offenses. Those who complain about this mandate should take a look at the 1974 Juvenile Justice Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, full of mandates from the beginning. As amended, the act now includes more than two dozen mandates. Some of these mandates are just administrative, but others are putting real burdens on the States, preventing the incarceration of status offenders, and mandating complete sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adults. These are costly mandates, especially in rural areas. With so many mandates that are designed to protect the juvenile offenders, it wouldn't hurt to have some incentives that protect the rest of us. Violent juveniles who commit armed violent offenses with a firearm are a serious threat to all of us. We need to treat those adult crimes as just that--adult criminal acts and require juveniles who commit them with firearms to answer accordingly. We need to send a message that violent firearm offenses will be prosecuted. Age should not be a defense to serious gun crimes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, is there a list of amendments?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have no objection.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Tennessee, first of all, for his sensitivity to what is happening in the schools of America. His visiting the schools is something which I find to be very important. You can sit here in Washington for a long time and cook up all sorts of theories about how schools ought to be, but until you talk to the people in the schools--and in his case Nashville, Davidson County--until you talk to the principals and teachers and parents, you do not understand the problems created by our current Federal IDEA law. The Senator from Tennessee has found out that in a 1-year snapshot there were eight detected possessions of weapons in the schools, six of which were from students covered by individualized education plans, and three of which our law--the law that we made--says schools can't expel those students the way they ought to be able to expel them. He has pointed out we should fix the law. What is interesting to me--and I commend the Senator from Tennessee. I have visited school districts all across the State of Missouri. I have gone to district after district to try and assert exactly what it is we should be doing. I have had school superintendents mention to me time after time this same problem. I talked to one small school district superintendent who talked about the dangers of not being able to have discipline in these settings. He talked about a student who threatened to kill other students seven times--threaten to shoot them. Finally, the individual shot another student. Fortunately, the shot took place off the school premises so that the legal authorities incarcerated the student. They didn't have to go through the painful procedure of trying to discipline him within the confines of this law which makes it virtually impossible to exercise the kind of discipline necessary. This bill is very simple. This bill is not designed to hurt any group of students. This is designed to secure the classroom. There isn't any class of students that is better off being favored and being able to bring guns or bombs to school. That is not in the interest of any group of students. This bill basically takes off barriers that the Congress placed in the path of good school administrators, parents, teachers and local school boards. We erected barriers that kept from taking students who had guns in their possession out of schools--merely because they were determined to be in some way disabled. This amendment simply says in spite of the fact that you are a student--of course, one out of every eight students nationally turns out to be disabled; one in seven in the State of Missouri--the fact that you are in this category called IDEA, doesn't mean you can bring a gun or a bomb to school with impunity. We simply take the barriers, the roadblocks out of the system. We say to school administrators and principals: You are free to discipline these students uniformly, just like you would discipline other students. I think that is a very important, profoundly simple point. It is the kind of correction which we only make when we get out and talk to people out there who are running the schools. When they tell you they can't discipline kids who are threatening over and over to kill other students, who eventually shoot other students, when they tell you they can't keep kids who brought guns to school out of school or from bringing guns back into school, and because of Federal procedures that say disciplines are more difficult the second time because we set up a Federal bureaucracy that keeps schools from being able to exercise discipline, it is time to say the most important thing for students-- whether disabled, conventional, mainstream or not--the most important thing for that classroom is safety. When you keep guns and bombs out of the school, you promote the safety of all students. I am here to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to be able to sponsor this amendment that gives local schools, principals, teachers, parents and school boards the right to maintain gun-free, bomb-free schools, to have safe learning environments where students, without the feeling of threat and insecurity, can actually learn. It is a pleasure to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senator Frist. I commend him. We all want to do everything we can for the education of all of our students. Our students who are disabled deserve our special compassion and attention, and more than any others, they deserve the protection that is afforded when we can have the ability to have secure, safe learning environments. We can do that when we allow our administrators to make sure that those individuals who bring guns to school can be disciplined. One last point: The law that provides for expulsion of students who bring guns to schools gives principals discretion to allow students to reenter the school. That same discretion would apply to these kinds of students as it applies to conventional students. This is a field leveler. It puts people on the same level and it puts the safety of our schoolchildren in first place--not part of our schoolchildren, all of them. Disabled children, other individuals, the entire school population must have the assurance that school officials have the capacity to enforce safe schools. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and others for joining in this. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. If I may ask, as a point of procedure, I thought we were operating under a unanimous consent that the next amendment to be offered was to be, according to the unanimous consent, an amendment sponsored by Senator Frist and myself.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I do not mean to forestall other amendments, but it was just my understanding. I am happy to try to work out a unanimous consent which allows for the other amendment. But I think it would be appropriate to do that rather than set aside the amendment in place, and as a result, until we work that out, I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Is this an amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia or is this another amendment?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, all of us are concerned and deeply so about what we think is a changing landscape in American culture. We are concerned about the fact that young people whom we once felt were the repository for the innocence of the culture are no longer that repository. We find ourselves being outraged and stunned when we find activity in juvenile quarters which are really threatening to all of us. That is why the whole juvenile justice topic is before us. We are amazingly aware, painfully aware, of the fact that we need to take steps to improve the way we deal with young people and to curtail the amount of criminal activity and behavior among those who are the young people of our culture. It is important that we debate this issue in the Senate. It is important that we offer legislative responses to this serious challenge to the public safety and security of people and their families. But we shouldn't try to telegraph or to communicate the fact that we are addressing this, that we think that we can do everything that is necessary for a safer and saner approach to life by all of our citizens including young people. There is much that simply can't be done by government. The resources of the State are inadequate to shape the culture totally and completely and to bring the kind of result that we want. The fact that we are here to talk about things that we can do doesn't mean we believe that what we can do will totally accommodate or otherwise remediate the problem. We should do what we can do. I believe it is important to look around and ask how can we improve the situation and the legal framework. One of the aspects of juvenile justice that we are discussing today is the access that juveniles have to firearms. In my hometown of Springfield, MO, and towns and cities across Missouri and across the United States, parents have long played an active and crucial role in teaching children the safe and responsible use of firearms. However, Federal law already recognizes that certain firearms involve a higher level of responsibility than others. Handguns, for instance, have long been recognized as requiring greater restrictions than other firearms. Of course, any restriction must respect the second amendment rights of American citizens, one of the fundamental rights enjoyed under the Bill of Rights under the U.S. Constitution. The amendment I propose today does exactly that. It simply extends the recognition of the need for increased responsibility to certain military-style semiautomatic assault weapons such as AK-47s and Uzis. In part, this mirrors a bill which I introduced recently in the Senate, Senate bill 994. The amendment which I have sent to the desk restricts the acquisition and possession of semiautomatic assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition-feeding devices--those holding over 10 rounds of ammunition--by juveniles. Let me say again what this amendment does. This amendment restricts juveniles from acquiring semiautomatic assault weapon rifles and high- capacity ammunition-feeding devices--meaning those feeding devices which hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. It says juveniles do not have the authority to acquire, to purchase, or to possess those rifles generally. Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. This amendment does not affect the lawful ownership or possession of semiautomatic hunting or target rifles or semiautomatic shotguns, the kind of firearms that are routinely used responsibly by young people and American citizens across our country in hunting. It does restrict the possession and purchase of semiautomatic assault weapons and the high- capacity ammunition-feeding devices associated with them. Current Federal gun law can be awfully complicated, but this amendment is not complicated. It is a straightforward commonsense amendment. Let me refer to a chart which shows the existing law. Already, the law requires elevated levels of responsibility in terms of handguns so that a juvenile individual is prohibited from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, prohibited from purchasing a handgun in a private transaction or sale, and must have the permission of a parent in order to possess or use the handgun. I repeat, cannot buy from a licensed dealer, cannot buy in a private sale, and must have permission to use or possess. Current Federal law in regard to semiautomatic assault rifles prohibits the sale by a federally licensed dealer to a juvenile, but permits juveniles to purchase semiautomatic assault rifles from individuals in private sales, and does not require a juvenile to have parental permission in order to possess or use such a firearm. We have a disparity. Handguns have been prohibited for sale both privately and through licensed dealers and require parental permission; semiautomatic assault rifles, or AKs or Uzis, although prohibited for sale by a licensed dealer, juveniles are permitted to purchase at private sales; and juveniles require no parental permission. What we are proposing takes care of this disparity. It says we will treat semiautomatic assault weapons as we treat handguns, that we will prohibit the acquisition of these weapons and firearms by juveniles from private sales just as they have been prohibited from federally licensed dealers, and we would require any possession by a juvenile of such a firearm to be an acknowledged and permitted possession of that firearm by the adult or the guardian parent of the juvenile. It is pretty clear that what we have done here is to simplify the law by saying the same basic rules that apply to juveniles on handguns will apply to juveniles in semiautomatic assault weapons or assault rifles. The law currently says in regard to a handgun you can teach your child to shoot a handgun but he can't shoot it without your permission. Basically, this would harmonize semiautomatic assault rifles with the law regarding handguns. Now, there are under existing law some permitted uses of handguns by juveniles. If a juvenile is in the military service or if a juvenile is in lawful defense of himself against an intruder into his house, he is allowed to use a handgun--eminently reasonable. Those basic exceptions ought to be transferred or ought to exist for other firearms, as well. Transfer of title to a firearm like this to a juvenile is permitted by inheritance, though the juvenile may not take possession until age 18, absent the kind of permission which would be required not only for this but for handguns. My amendment simply treats semiautomatic assault weapons such as the AK-47s and the Uzis, street-sweeper shotguns, and high-capacity ammunition-feeding devices the same way for juveniles that we treat handguns. Private parties can no longer sell them to juveniles, and the juvenile needs parental permission to possess one unless he is in the military or uses it for self-defense. What kind of weapons are we talking about that have been permitted to be sold to juveniles but would be prohibited under this amendment? The list includes: the AK-47, the Uzis, the Galil, Beretta AR 70, Colt AR- 15, Fabrique Nationale FN or FAL, SWD M 10, M-11, M-11 1/9, the Steyr Aug, the TEC-9, street-sweeper shotgun, Striker-12 shotgun, and other semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with at least two military features, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet gloves, and grenade launchers. These are serious firearms. Because they are serious, they create some new serious penalties. This amendment creates a new penalty of up to 20 years' incarceration for possession of handgun ammunition or semiautomatic assault weapon or high-capacity ammunition-feeding device with the intent to possess, carry, or use it in a crime of violence in a school zone. It raises the penalty for transferring a firearm to a juvenile, knowing that it will be used in a crime of violence or drug crime, to 20 years.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. The Ashcroft amendment is a very simple amendment. It recognizes that in addition to handguns, which require some special responsibility and, therefore, are prohibited for sale to minors, and are even prohibited in private sales to minors, and for them to be in the possession of a minor requiring the permission of parents, that the same kind of rules ought to apply to semiautomatic assault rifles as apply to handguns as it relates to minors. Right now, where handgun sales to minors are prohibited, semiautomatic assault rifle sales to minors are permitted. Where a minor, in order to have a handgun, has to have parental permission, a minor can own an assault rifle, a semiautomatic assault rifle without parental permission. The Ashcroft amendment simply wants to remove this disparity, because it expresses a belief that a semiautomatic assault rifle, assault weapon, ought to have the same level of responsibility attendant to it as a handgun. The Ashcroft amendment would prohibit private sales of semiautomatic assault rifles to minors, and it would require that they have parental permission in order for one even to be in the possession of a minor. This really makes the rules about handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons identical for all basic intents and purposes. There are some exceptions in the law for purposes of the possession of handguns that relate to employment. There are some minors, for instance, who are required in their employment to be involved with a handgun. Those exceptions would be the same basically as well. The thrust of this amendment is to say that this situation where semiautomatic assault weapons were not required to have the level of responsibility that we had assigned to handguns for juveniles, that should be changed so that assault rifles and the semiautomatic assault weapons have the same kind of responsibility requirements that had previously been applied to handguns resulting in the requirement that there be parental permission before there can even be possession, and that there would not be a potential for purchase in private sales. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this reasonable and simple change in the law.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her kind remarks about the intent that is expressed in making sure we provide the same kind of restrictions for semiautomatic assault weapons that we provide for handguns. I just say this is an important amendment. This is the subject of legislation I have previously filed in the Senate. I think this is appropriate because this addresses the subject matter of this bill, which is the juvenile justice framework. This is not, obviously, a comprehensive approach to such weapons but it is very clear and specific in terms of its reference to juveniles and their possession of not only the weapons but the kind of expanded or substantial clips or magazines, and it simply says juveniles are ineligible to possess those kinds of expanded clips or magazines. So I believe this measure is appropriate and it will harmonize the law to say that juveniles do not have greater authority to possess semiautomatic assault rifles than they do to possess handguns. This harmonizes the law and brings it into a place of reasonability. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this amendment. I appreciate, and will appreciate, the support of colleagues who intend to vote on behalf of this amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It simply says that what we ought to do in regard to semiautomatic assault weapons in our schools, for young people, is to require them to have the same kind of rules we have for handguns. Most people think that a semiautomatic assault weapon is much more dangerous than a handgun. Yet, under current law, you are permitted to buy one as a juvenile. You don't have to have your parents' permission like you do with a handgun, where you are prohibited and you do have to have your parents' permission. So what we are talking about in this law is, for semiautomatic weapons, you are prohibited from buying them as a juvenile. And you cannot even possess one unless you have a clear indication of your parents' permission. We have also dealt with juveniles in these clips that are being spoken of and simply said that they are not eligible to possess these clips, that this kind of automatic ammunition-feeding device is not appropriate for and, therefore, is prohibited, in terms of selling to, in the same way that we would prohibit the sales to young people of semiautomatic assault weapons. It does not include traditional hunting weapons, and we are not talking about these kind of things that are mentioned as spray-firing weapons. As a matter of fact, semiautomatic is not spray firing. Spray firing is a machine gun. We are simply making the rules for semiautomatic assault weapons the same as they are for handguns. It a change that ought to be made. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire of the state of time?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his work, coming to Missouri to participate in the hearing. It became clear to us that adults using children to commit crimes-- hoping the children would be excused because of their youth and they would all escape penalty--brings children into a criminal environment. It starts them down a path of crime. That is very dangerous, and this proposal which we are considering today obviously would elevate the penalties for that about threefold. I am delighted. Again, let me refer to this amendment that really harmonizes the law so the same kinds of prohibitions apply to semiautomatic assault weapons as apply to handguns. There are a few clarifying changes in the existing law. It makes it clear that parental permission allows possession, either with parental supervision or with prior written permission of a parent. Even with this parental permission, juveniles can only possess these weapons for three narrow purposes: For target shooting; for gun safety courses; or if required for their employment in ranching, farming, or lawful hunting. Such a firearm being transported by a juvenile must be unloaded and in a locked case, under this amendment. So for a juvenile, even if he was transporting for one of these lawful purposes--that also relates to handguns, I might add-- the law requires the weapon be unloaded and in a locked case. Likewise, this amendment allows prior written permission to be retained by a parent instead of carried by the juvenile in the case of juvenile possession incident to employment, ranching, or farming activities. In other words, if on a ranch a youngster is carrying a pistol, obviously the written permission can exist in the ranch house while the youngster is doing chores or away from the house with the pistol. Finally, the amendment clarifies the self-defense provision of the law by permitting possession in lawful defense of self or others in a residence against any threat to the life of the individuals there. I think it is only reasonable to conclude it should not be illegal for a young person to pick up a handgun to defend himself and his family in the event he is in his home and is the victim of a threat to his own life. If parents want to teach children to use firearms responsibly, the law should not stand in the way. This law encourages parents to play an active role in the lives of their children and respects the judgment of parents. It does not suggest we in Washington know best and are better equipped than parents to make decisions. But it does say, as it relates to semiautomatic assault rifles and weapons, the provisions that relate to handguns ought to be the provisions that relate to semiautomatic rifles. That means this amendment would prohibit the private sale of a semiautomatic assault rifle to a juvenile and the possession of any assault rifle or similar weapon by a juvenile, absent the specific permission of a parent. With that in mind, I think we take another step forward. We do not cure all the problems attendant to our society related to law-abiding responsibilities of young people. But we do take a step forward to bring the law to a place of rationality and to prohibit possession of semiautomatic assault rifles where pistols or handguns would be prohibited, and to prohibit such possession without the permission of a parent in a similar way to the way in which it has been prohibited for handguns. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.