Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say to the Senator, this is another amendment on the same subject. It is a first-degree amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I agree, I would like----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I wish to oppose your amendment and so I wish to see that there is an opportunity for me to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Hatch-Feinstein amendment, a comprehensive package which contains no less than three different bills which I have introduced, which all seek to stem the steady tide of criminal violence in this country. Specifically, it includes the following bills which I have introduced: The Federal Gang Violence Act, a comprehensive package of measures which were recommended by law enforcement to increase their ability to combat the increasingly-violent criminal gangs which are spreading across the country. Senator Hatch and I introduced this legislation in the past two congresses, and some of its provisions have already been included in the bill before us today, as Title II of the bill. The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999, which is designed to increase police and public safety by taking body armor out of the hands of criminals and putting it in the hands of police. I introduced this earlier this year as S. 783, and it has been co-sponsored by Senators Sessions, Boxer, Reid, Bryan, and Kerry. We also have incorporated S. 726, the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999, which was introduced by Senators Campbell and Torricelli. Anti-bombmaking legislation, which is designed to do everything possible under the Constitution to take information about how to make a bomb off the Internet by criminalizing the distribution of such information for a criminal purpose. I have introduced it in the past as an amendment to other bills, with the support of Senator Biden, and introduced it earlier this year as part of S. 606, with Senators Nickles, Hatch, and Mack. This amendment also includes provisions drafted by Senator Hatch to address animal enterprise terrorism, which he introduced earlier this year as part of his omnibus crime bill, S. 899. I want to express my great thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for working with me to put this package together, which is obviously of the highest priority to me. Let me now describe what it does, in more detail: gangs Gangs are no longer a local problem involving small groups of wayward youths. Rather, gang violence has truly become a problem of national scope. The U.S. Justice Department issued a report which details the dramatic scope of this problem: there are over 23,000 youth gangs, in all 50 states; it will come as no surprise to you to learn that California is the number one gang state, with almost 5,000 gangs, and more than three times as many gang members as the next-most gang- plagued state; and overall, there are almost 665,000 gang members in the country, more than a ten-fold increase since 1975. [Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995 National Youth Gang Survey, released in August, 1997.] In Los Angeles alone, nearly 7,300 of its citizens were murdered in the last 16 years from gang warfare, more people than have been killed in all the terrorist fighting in northern Ireland. Today's gangs are organized and sophisticated traveling crime syndicates--much like the Mafia. They spread out and franchise across the country, many from California. The Los Angeles-based 18th Street gang now deals directly with the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, and has expanded its operations to Oregon, Utah, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. Local police and the FBI have traced factions of the Bloods and Crips to more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest with more than 60,000 members. The Gangster Disciples, according to local authorities, is a Chicago- based 30,000 member multi-million dollar gang operation spanning 35 states, which traffics in narcotics and weapons, with income estimated at $300,000 daily. A 1995 study of gang members by the National Gang Crime Research Center found: three-quarters of the gangs exist in multiple geographic areas; half of the gang members belonged to gangs which did not arise locally, but arose with contact from a gang from outside the area; and 61 percent indicated their gang was an official branch of a larger national gang. Sgt. Jerry Flowers with the gang crime unit in Oklahoma City captured the migration instinct of these gangs when he said: ``the gang leaders realized that the same ounce of crack cocaine they sold for $300 in Los Angeles was worth nearly $2,000 in Oklahoma City.'' Gangs also steer at-risk youth into crime. A recently released study by the National Institute of Justice went about answering the question: ``Are gangs really responsible for increases in crime or are youths who grow up in very difficult circumstances but do not join gangs committing just as many crimes?'' To answer this, the Institute scientifically compared gang members with demographically similar at- risk youth in four cities. The results were very revealing, and I think it's important to share these with the Senate: The research revealed that criminal behavior committed by gang members is extensive and significantly exceeds that committed by comparably at-risk but nongang youth. * * * * * Youths who join gangs tend to begin as `wannabes' at about age 13, join about 6 months later, and get arrested within 6 months after joining the gang. By age 14 they already have an arrest record. * * * * * An important positive correlation exists between when these individuals joined gangs and when their arrest histories accelerated. * * * * * [D]ata indicate that gang involvement significantly increases one's chances of being arrested, incarcerated, seriously injured, or killed. * * * * * [G]ang members are far more likely to commit certain crimes, such as auto theft; theft; assaulting rivals; carrying concealed weapons in school; using, selling, and stealing drugs; intimidating or assaulting victims and witnesses; and participating in drive-by shootings and homicides than nongang youths. * * * * * Gang members . . . are better connected to nonlocal sources than nongang drug traffickers. * * * * * [N]early 75 percent of gang members acknowledged that nearly all of their fellow gang members own guns. Even more alarming, 90 percent of gang interviewees reported that gang members favor powerful, lethal weapons over small caliber handguns. Finally, the study noted, ``By all accounts, the number of youth gangs and their members continues to grow.'' To help stem this tide, my staff met for months with prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and community leaders to search for solutions to the problem of gang violence. The Federal Gang Violence Act makes the federal government a more active partner in the war against violent and deadly organized gangs. Provisions which are already in the bill include: Making it a federal crime to recruit someone to join a criminal gang, subject to a one year mandatory minimum if an adult is recruited, and a four year mandatory minimum if a minor is recruited. One of the most insidious tactics of today's gangs is the way they target children to do their dirty work, and indoctrinate them into a life of crime. For example, the 18th street gang which I described earlier, according to the Los Angeles Times, ``resembles a kind of children's army,'' with recruiters who scout middle schools for 11- to 13-year-old children to join the gang. The gang's real leaders, however, are middle-aged veteranos, long-time gang members who direct its criminal activities from the background. The establishment of a High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Area program. Efforts to combat gang violence have been hampered by jurisdictional boundaries. The Los Angeles Times has opined that, To date, that sort of `in it for the long haul' anti-gang effort has not occurred among law enforcement authorities here. Local police agencies fail to share information and are unwilling to commit resources outside their boundaries; this is always a problem in multi-jurisdictional Southern California. Federal law enforcement agencies have come in, but only for limited times. Meanwhile, the outlaw force gets nothing more than a bloody nose. The growth, greed and brutality of the 18th Street gang demand a coordinated local, state and federal response, one prepared to continue for months and even years if necessary. To remedy this situation, I crafted a program modeled after the popular High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, program. The HIIGAA program: Adds $100 million per year for prosecutors and prevention programs, targeted to areas that are particularly involved in interstate criminal gang activity, for: Joint federal-state-local law enforcement task forces, ``for the coordinated investigation, disruption, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal activities of gangs and gang members'' in the areas; and community-based gang prevention programs in the areas. These areas are designated by the Attorney General, who in so doing must consider: The extent to which gangs from the area are involved in interstate or international criminal activity; the extent to which the area is affected by the criminal activity of gang members who are located in or have relocated from other states or foreign countries; and the extent to which the area is affected by the criminal activity of gangs that originated in other states or foreign countries (e.g., by migration of Crips and Bloods). I believe that this program could be tremendously helpful to the L.A. area in particular, as it is the leading source of interstate gang activity in the country, and could help bring together Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and other counties with the state and federal governments, in a coordinated, focused effort, balanced between enforcement and prevention, to beat back the gangs. The amendment Senator Hatch and I are offering today would increase the emphasis upon prevention in this program by boosting that share from 25 to 40 percent, consistent with the committee's action last Congress. The recent NIJ study which I mentioned earlier concluded: ``It is also important to address the brief window of opportunity for intervention that occurs in the year between the ``wannabe'' stage and the age at first arrest. It is vital that intervention programs that target gang members and successfully divert them from the gang are funded, developed, evaluated, improved, and sustained.'' This program, and the change we propose today, will help to do that. This amendment also would add the following anti-gang provisions to the bill: 1. Increases sentences for gang members who commit federal crimes to further the gang's activities, by directing the Sentencing Commission to make an appropriate increase under the Sentencing Guidelines. 2. Makes is easier to prove criminal gang activity, by: Reducing the number of members prosecutors have to prove are in a gang from five to three; Changing the definition of a criminal gang from a group ``that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of'' certain criminal offenses to a group ``that has as one of its primary activities the commission of'' certain criminal offenses; Adding the following federal offenses to the list of gang crimes: extortion, gambling, obstruction of justice (includes jury tampering and witness intimidation), money laundering, alien smuggling, an attempt or solicitation to commit any of these offenses, or federal violent felonies or drug crimes, which are already included in the current law), and gang recruitment; Adding asset forfeiture 3. Amends the Travel Act, which passed in 1961 to address Mafia-type crime, to deal with modern gangs, by adding gang crimes such as: assault with a deadly weapon, drive-by shootings, and witness intimidation to its provisions. It also increases penalties under the Act, and helps prosecutors by adding a conspiracy provision to the Act. 4. Adds serious juvenile drug offenses to the Armed Career Criminal Act, which provides for a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence if a felon with three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses is caught with a firearm. 5. Further targets gangsters who exploit children by adding a three- year mandatory minimum sentence to the existing law against knowingly transferring a firearm for use in a violent crime or drug trafficking crime, where the gun is transferred to a minor. 6. Provision addressing clone pagers, which Sen. DeWine has worked on, which would make it easier to investigate gang members by allowing law enforcement to obtain pagers which are clones of those possessed by gang members, under the lower standard which applies to pen registers, rather than the more difficult wiretap standard, which currently applies. I want to note that we did not include the provision of last year's bill which was criticized for federalizing much gang crime. Altogether, this anti-gang package gives federal law enforcement a set of powerful new tools with which to team up with state and local law enforcement and crack down on criminal gangs. body armor The next piece of this comprehensive amendment is the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999, which is designed to increase police and public safety by taking body armor out of the hands of criminals and putting it in the hands of police. As I mentioned previously, I introduced this earlier this year as S. 783, and it has been cosponsored by Senators Sessions, Boxer, Reid, Bryan, and Kerry. Currently, Federal law does not limit access to body armor for individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence. However, it is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor. Many will recall the violent and horrific shootout in North Hollywood, California, just 2 years ago. In that incident, two suspects wearing body armor and armed to the teeth, terrorized a community. Police officers on the scene had to borrow rifles from a nearby gunshop to counteract the firepower and protective equipment of these suspects. Another tragic incident involved San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff responded to a distress call. Upon reaching the crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily armed suspect who was shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. Officer Guelff died in the ensuing gun-fight. Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, recently wrote a letter to me about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. He wrote: It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower . . . But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again. I couldn't agree with Lee more. Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a criminal is an offensive weapon. Our police officers on the streets are adequately supplied with body armor, and that hardened-criminals are deterred from using body armor. This body armor amendment has three key provisions. First, it increases the penalties criminals receive if they commit a crime wearing body armor. Specifically, a violation will lead to an increase of two levels under the Federal sentencing guidelines. Second, it makes it unlawful for violent felons to purchase, use, or possess body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police. I will address each of these three provisions. First, criminals who wear body armor during the commission of a crime should face enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well protected. In the North Hollywood shoot-out, for example, the gunmen were able to hold dozens of officers at bay because of their body armor. This provision will deter the criminal use of body armor, and thus deter the escalation of violence in our communities. Second, this amendment would make it a crime for individuals with a violent criminal record to wear body armor. It is unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection. The bill recognizes that there may be exceptional circumstances where an individual with a brutal history legitimately needs body armor to protect himself or herself. Therefore, it provides an affirmative defense for individuals who require body armor for lawful job-related activities. Another crucial part of this body armor amendment is that it speeds up the procedures by which Federal agencies can donate surplus body armor to local police. Far too many of our local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25 percent of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor. Getting our officers more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30 percent of the 1,182 officers willed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest. Last year, Congress made some inroads into this shortage of body armor by enacting the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998.'' This act established a $25 million annual fund to help local and State police purchase body armor. This amendment will further boost the body armor resources of local and State police departments. These body armor amendments have the support of over 500,000 law enforcement personnel nationwide. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brother of Police Officers, the Major City Chiefs, and the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, have all endorsed the legislation. An additional piece of this body armor package is S. 726, the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999 introduced by Senator Campbell and cosponsored by Senator Torricelli. Senator Campbell's proposals are dedicated to the memory of Dale Claxton, a Colorado police officer who was fatally shot through the windshield of his police car. These proposals include: Authorizing continued funding for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act program at $25 million per year; Second, creating a $40 million matching grant program to help State and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes purchase bullet resistant glass, armored panels for patrol cars, hand-held bullet resistant shield and other life saving bullet resistant equipment; Third, authorizing a $25 million matching grant program for the purchase of video cameras for use in law enforcement vehicles; and Finally, the amendment directs the National Institute of Justice to promote bullet-resistant technologies. I am pleased that we were able to include these measures in our amendment as well. They strengthen the amendment's purpose to protect police and the public. bombmaking Let me turn now to the bombmaking piece of this package. According to authorities, the killers in Littleton learned how to make their 30-plus bombs form bombmaking instructions posted on the Internet. Hundreds and hundreds of Web sites contain instructions on how to build bombs, such as this Terrorists' Handbook, which my staff downloaded from the Internet a week after the tragedy. This bombmaking manual contains detailed, step-by-step instructions for building devices such as pipe bombs, lightbulb bombs, and letter bombs, which have no legitimate, lawful purpose. It also tells the reader how to break into college labs to obtain useful chemicals, how to pick locks, and even contains a checklist for raids on laboratories. internet bombmaking incidents continuing after littleton Unfortunately, in the short time since the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, there has been a steady stream of incidents of youths using the Internet to build bombs and threaten their use at school: Police arrested five students at McKinley Junior High School in Brooklyn for possessing a bomb-making manual, a day after the eighth- graders were caught allegedly plotting to set off a bomb at graduation. The arrested students, all 13, were charged with second-degree conspiracy after allegedly bringing bomb-making information found on the Internet to class, police and school officials said. Salt Lake City School District has received about 10 reports of threats to kill or blow up schools, said Nancy Woodward, district director of student and family services. Many of the students making such threats have a history of violent threats and have written about such violence in notebooks or downloaded Internet information. [4/28/99 Deseret News] Three Cobb County, Georgia boys arrested for possession of a pipe bomb on school property learned how to make the explosive by browsing the Internet, according to testimony at a court hearing. One week after the high school killings in Colorado, authorities across Texas are reporting a spate of incidents that involve violent threats by students and crude efforts to manufacture bombs. In Port Aransas, Texas, a 15-year-old boy who allegedly downloaded from the Internet information on bomb making and killing faced criminal charges after the was turned in to police by his father. The boy had threatened teachers and classmates. At least seven teen-agers are being held in Wimberley and Wichita Falls alone, all of them on suspicion of making explosives, some of which officials say were to be used to attack a school. A judge ordered four Wimberley, Texas junior high school students to remain in a juvenile detention center, accused of planning an attack on their own school. Sheriff's deputies questioned the four eighth-graders over the weekend and searched their homes, turning up gunpowder, crudely built explosives and instructions on making bombs on computer disks and downloanded from the Internet. More than 50 threats of bombings and other acts of violence against schools have been reported across Pennsylvania over the last four days, which state officials attributed partly to last week's bombing in Littleton, Colo. Elsewhere on the Web, the Columbine tragedy has triggered a kind of electronic turf warfare, as individuals snap up site addresses containing words reflecting the tragedy, such as the killers' names or the name of their clique, the Trench Coat Mafia. At least one such site, filled with images of guns and bomb-making instructions, was offered for sale to the highest bidder on eBay, an online auction. ``When we became aware of it, we took it down immediately,'' an eBay spokesman said. ``It is totally inappropriate.'' And just 28 miles away from where we stand today, three students at Glen Burnie High School, in Maryland, were arrested for issuing bomb threats and possessing bomb-making components. One of those arrested had told another student, ``You're on my hit list.'' A police search of the boys' homes found match heads, suitcases, wires, chemicals, and printouts from the Internet showing how to put it all together to make bombs. Graffiti at the school read, ``if you think Littleton was bad, wait until you see what happens here.'' Description of the Legislation I have been trying to do as much as I can under the First Amendment to get rid of this sort of filth for four years now. This amendment: Makes it a federal crime to teach or distribute information on how to make a bomb or other weapon of mass destruction if the teacher: Intends that the information be used to commit a federal violent crime or knows that the recipient of the information intends to use it to commit a federal violent crime; and sets a maximum sentence of 20 years. This legislation has been endorsed by both the explosives industry (Institute for Makers of Explosives) and the Anti-Defamation League. Hitory of the Amendment The substance of this amendment has passed the Senate or the Judiciary Committee in each of the past four years, without a single vote in opposition: in 1995, as an amendment to the anti-terrorism bill, by unanimous consent; in 1996, as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, again by unanimous consent; in 1997, again as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, this time by a vote of 94-0; and last year, in the Judiciary Committee, as an amendment to a private relief bill for Kerr-McGee Corporation, by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, despite the unanimous support of the Senate, the House has killed the amendment in conference each time it has passed the Senate: On the terrorism bill, it was replaced by a directive to the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on six different issues related to the amendment; on the FY 97 Defense bill, it was eliminated because the Attorney General's study was then ongoing, and she had not yet issued her report; on the FY 98 Defense bill, it was eliminated because it falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committees, and the House objected to its not taking this usual course. Justice Department Support I mentioned the Justice Department report earlier; that report found that the amendment was justified on each of the six factors the Department was asked to consider, and recommended that Congress finally pass this legislation: Factor: ``(1) the extent to which there is available to the public material in any medium (including print, electronic or film) that provides instruction on how to make bombs, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction.'' DOJ Report: ``It is readily apparent from our cursory examination that anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon or weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions for fabricating and using such a device.'' Factor: ``(2) the extent to which information gained from such materials has been used in incidents of domestic or international terrorism.'' DOJ Report: ``Recent law enforcement experience demonstrates that persons who attempt or plan acts of terrorism often possess literature that describes the construction of explosive devices and other weapons of mass destruction (including biological weapons).'' ``[R]eported federal cases involving murder, bombing, arson, and related crimes, reflect the use of bombmaking manuals by defendants and the frequent seizure of such texts during the criminal investigation of such activities.'' ``Finally, information furnished by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reveals that such literature is frequently used by individuals bent upon making bombs for criminal purposes.'' The report connected ``mayhem manuals'' to numerous terrorist and criminal actions, including: The World Trade Center bombing; the Omega 7 group, who conducted terrorist bombings in the New York area; an individual attempting to bring enough ricin--one of the most toxic substances known--into the U.S. to kill over 32,000 people; and the ``Patriots Council'' began developing ricin to attack federal or local law enforcement officials. Factor: ``(3) the likelihood that such information may be used in future incidents of terrorism.'' DOJ Report: ``both the FBI and ATF expect that because the availability of such information is becoming increasingly widespread, such bombmaking instructions will continue to play a significant role in aiding those intent upon committing future acts of terrorism and violence.'' Factor: ``(4) the application of Federal laws in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to such material.'' DOJ Report: while there are several existing federal laws which could be applied to bombmaking instructions in some circumstances, ``current federal law does not specifically address certain classes of cases.'' Factor: ``(5) the need and utility, if any, for additional laws relating to such material.'' DOJ Report: ``the Department of Justice agrees with [Senators Feinstein and Biden] that it would be appropriate and beneficial to adopt further legislation to address this problem directly, in a manner that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication and teaching of such information, or otherwise violate the First Amendment.'' Factor: ``(6) an assessment of the extent to which the first amendment protects such material and its private and commercial distribution.'' DOJ Report: ``where such a purpose [to aid or cause a criminal result] is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would have to be in a criminal case, the First Amendment should be no bar to culpability.'' ``we think these First Amendment concerns can be overcome, and that such a facilitation prohibition could be constitutional, if drafted narrowly.'' I ask that the Justice Department's report be incorporated by reference as part of the Record. The Justice Department proposed a slight re-draft of the original version of the Feinstein amendment. It is this re-draft which we have included in this amendment with one further modification, removing state crimes from its scope, made at the request of Representative McCollum. Conclusion This is a powerful set of amendments, which I am convinced can do a great deal to reduce criminal violence in America. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, what I believe we are in, to some extent, is a kind of interindustry beef, if I might use that vernacular. And it all deals with the shipment of alcohol or alcoholic beverages across State lines. The amendment just submitted by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is of major concern to the California wine industry. It is of major concern to the California wine industry, which makes 90 percent of the wine of this country, because small boutique wineries, which have wine tastings and then offer for sale a bottle of rather expensive wine over the Internet, are essentially affected by this amendment, which takes all State laws and essentially provides a Federal court venue. We have had discussions in the Judiciary Committee; we had a full hearing in the the Judiciary Committee. The California Wine Institute testified as well as a vintner from Santa Cruz, CA. I thought there was going to be a delay. Senator Hatch had this amendment. He decided to let it sit for awhile so that we could put together some agreement. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been an original supporter of what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia proposes. However, at this time I will read from the text of a letter, dated May 13, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, signed by Karolyn Nannalee, the national president. At the time MADD provided testimony no legislation had been drafted on the subject. The text of S. 577 has implications far beyond our concerns and is, in fact, a battle between various elements within the alcoholic beverages industry. It does not surprise us that the competing parties would like to have the support of the victims of drunk driving. It does, however, dismay us that they would go to such lengths to misrepresent our views on the subject. I only say this because Mothers Against Drunk Driving does not, in fact support the legislation that has just been presented. The allegation is, of course, that this legislation is directed against the wine industry, which is having increasing success in the United States as more and more Americans consume wine as opposed to other alcoholic beverages. For the small winery that may not have shelf space in a supermarket, the Internet has emerged as a source of sales of their products. Now, let's address the question of teenage drinking. In this respect, I agree entirely, 100 percent, with what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said. We ought to do everything we can to discourage teenage drinking. I do not have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is throwing all complicated laws with respect to alcoholic beverages into the Federal courts. I think that is unnecessary, and I think it is unwanted by many of us at least. The amendment I have submitted--actually as an alternative, although it is a first-degree amendment--as an alternative to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I believe, would solve the problem, because it would require that any package containing an alcoholic beverage that is shipped across State lines must be labeled clearly and its contents must be identified as alcoholic beverages. Second, it would require that upon delivery the recipient must be of an age to lawfully purchase the beverage and must sign and identify himself or herself as such. It would require the invoice to state that an adult signature is required for delivery. It would require the deliverer not to deliver unless an adult signature is attached. It provides criminal penalties for violation, and with three violations the BATF, on a mandatory basis, must revoke the basic permit of any person who has been convicted of three or more violations of this section. I think this gets at the basic problem by setting up safeguards so that particularly wine can be shipped across State lines by the purchaser. This is complicated but is something that has arisen and has become a kind of folk art, if you will, and that is the wine tasting where people go to wine areas, where they go directly to the winery where there is a wine tasting, where they see a new bottle of wine, sometimes very limited supply, and they say: Oh, how can I buy it? And the vendor will say: You can buy it through my web site, and it is $90, $80, $70 a bottle. That is how this is done. I believe my amendment, without throwing all of this into Federal court, essentially skins the cat without killing it. I would be hopeful that the Senate would see it as worthy. I very much thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I would like to thank the ranking member and those who made it possible for me to offer this amendment at this time. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. The amendment essentially would require that when one ships an alcoholic beverage, that there be a label on the shipping container that contains clearly and prominently an identification of the contents of the package. It would then require that upon delivery, an adult must show identification to receive it. It also would provide that it is a criminal charge to violate that, and with three violations, the BATF revokes the license.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia whose intelligence is only exceeded by his gentility and courtliness. Thank you very, very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator an additional minute.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to close several loopholes in laws that allow juveniles to obtain big guns. The amendment will ban juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. It will ban juvenile possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. It will ban future importation of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and it makes the transfer of a handgun, semiautomatic assault weapon or high- capacity clip to a juvenile a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It increases the maximum penalty for transferring a handgun to a juvenile, with knowledge that it will be used to commit a crime, from 10 to 20 years. It does that same thing for transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon to a juvenile. I think we have had a good discussion on the first part of the amendment with Senator Ashcroft's legislation; that is, the amendment banning juvenile possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon. Current law already prohibits any person under the age of 18 from owning or possessing a handgun, with certain very limited exceptions. Yet, the law does nothing to prevent a juvenile from possessing the deadliest of assault weapons, those banned by our legislation of 1994. This would close that loophole. Secondly, the amendment bans juvenile possession of large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices. Now, what is a large-capacity ammunition-feeding device? It is something like this, where 30 rounds go into this clip. The clip goes up into the weapon, and you can use the weapon and spray fire, having a large number of bullets. Most assault weapons come standard with 20- or 30-round clips. These big drums or clips are the tools that allow a person to rapidly fire shot after shot after shot with no opportunity to be disarmed. As I said earlier, they have no sporting purpose. Anybody who sees somebody deer hunting with one of these, root for the deer because you don't have much of a hunter if it takes 30 bullets in an assault weapon to take down a deer. For both of these two provisions, the ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, there are two exceptions. A juvenile may still use or possess a handgun, assault weapon, or high- capacity ammunition magazine if he or she is a member of the Armed Forces or the National Guard, and the use of such items is in the line of duty. Secondly, a juvenile may still use or possess a handgun, assault weapon, or high-capacity ammunition if these items are temporarily being used to defend a home. So, in other words, if there is one in the home and the home is invaded by a number of masked gunmen, the youth can certainly legally pick up that weapon to defend himself or herself. Throughout my amendment, a juvenile is defined as a person under the age of 18. The third provision I have offered would finally stop the importation of large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices, and that is what the other side of the aisle wants to permit to continue to happen. As I mentioned earlier when we passed the legislation in 1994, a grandfather clause was in it to permit those shipments that have bills of lading on them to come into the country. What a mistake I made at that time. I should have fought it tooth and nail. It was then expanded, and you have the loophole that exists today. It has now been more than 4 years, and I believe anybody who has made pre-1994 assault weapons and clips has had an opportunity to import them into this Nation. My goodness, BATF, in 6 months, approves permits for 8.6 million of them. Now, look at the number of years that have gone by already. If you multiply every 6 months by 8.6 million, you will get a sense of the number that are coming in. Let me say, once again, it is illegal to manufacture them domestically, sell them domestically, and possess them domestically, if they were made after the ban. The problem is, BATF has no way of knowing whether the clip, once it is in, was made before or after the ban because BATF can't go to Austria, or Great Britain, or Italy, or Zimbabwe, or Czechoslovakia, or East Germany, or any of these other places where these big clips are made and brought into this country. Last year, the President stopped the importation of most copycat assault weapons into this country with an executive order. The Justice Department has advised that the President doesn't have the authority to ban the big clips and close the loophole. That is why the legislation is before us today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Firearms and Explosives Import Branch, High-Capacity Magazine Import Totals, 3/98 to 7/98'' be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan. A while back, a former Vice President said he is one of the great minds of the Senate. I certainly agree with that. I think you know that. Thank you very much. I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey on the floor. I yield 5 minutes of my time to Senator Torricelli.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island knows I hold him in very high regard, but I want him to know that my fondness for him has just increased exponentially. Thank you very much for that very compelling statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may then discuss what is in the division of the question. When we passed the assault weapons legislation in 1994, there was a grandfather clause which permitted the continued importation of shipments of clips, drums and strips of large size, large size being defined here by more than 10 bullets. In the legislation passed in 1994, the domestic manufacture of these same clips and the sale of these same clips and the possession of these same clips was made illegal. The loophole is permitting the importation of foreign clips while we close off the manufacture of them domestically, the sale of the domestic clip. These new clips, manufactured after the ban, the fact of the matter is, are coming in. I submitted for the record BATF statistics that in 6 months 8.6 million clips are approved for entry from 20 different countries, many of them as big as 250 rounds, 90 rounds, 70 rounds, 50 rounds, by the hundreds of thousands. We are trying to cut off that loophole. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You finish, and then I will go.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Schumer, Torricelli, Durbin, Levin, Landrieu, Murray, and Inouye.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his thinking. I very much appreciate it. It seems to me, those of us who have big cities in our States really understand what a lot of this is about. I think it is very important. When we get back here I think we forget what it is like out there, the ease with which youngsters can obtain these high-powered implements which are capable of killing so many people at one time. So I thank the Senator very much for his support in this. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me once again state what is the fundamental difference between the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Missouri and my amendment. My amendment has one thing that his does not. It closes the loophole in the 1994 assault weapons legislation. Today, it is illegal for anyone, domestically, to manufacture these big clips. It is illegal for them to sell them. It is illegal for people to possess them. But it is not illegal to bring them in from abroad. So why wouldn't we straighten this out? Why would we disadvantage our domestic manufacturers and allow all of this stuff, these big clips, up to 250 rounds, to come in from abroad? It makes no sense. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In a simple equity argument, we have closed the supply off domestically. Why permit these clips to come in from foreign countries? Mr. President, I believe as soon as Senator Schumer comes he would like some time on this amendment as well. But I think we have an opportunity today for both parties to come together and do something important for our Nation. I deeply believe this legislation is supported by 80 percent to 90 percent of the American people. Why would we not enact it? Both of us want the same thing. We want to keep these weapons out of the hands of juveniles and we want to keep these big clips out of the hands of juveniles. Does it make sense, then, to continue to increase the supply? I do not believe it does. I suggest the absence of a quorum and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act. This important legislation will remedy a flaw in federal child support laws that could cost California $4 billion annually. On April 30, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its intent to reject the State of California's plan for child and spousal support because California does not have a centralized ``State Disbursement Unit'' that distributes child support collections to families. The mandatory penalty for this failure is loss of all federal child support administrative funding, which amounts to $300 million a year. In addition, because the 1996 welfare reform law requires states to have an approved child support plan in order to receive the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant, California could lose its entire TANF block grant of $3.7 billion a year. In other words, California faces a $4 billion annual penalty for its failure to operate a State Disbursement Unit. This so-called ``nuclear penalty'' is completely unjust and out of proportion. It will devastate the State of California's ability to serve low-income children and families--both families on welfare, and families who need child support so that they can stay off welfare. The penalty also will cripple the State's budget, seriously harming the largest economy in this nation. I am not questioning the value of a State Disbursement Unit, or California's need to develop one. On the contrary, I am urging Governor Davis and the State legislature to come up with a plan to develop a State Disbursement Unit as quickly as possible. But I do not believe that poor families should be severely punished because the State has not gotten its act together. Moreover, California's failure to develop a State Disbursement Unit is a direct result of its failure to develop a statewide computer system that tracks child support cases--and California is already paying a penalty for the computer failure. The computer system penalty, which Congress established just last year, is fair and proportionate. More importantly, it rises over time, giving California a powerful incentive to get a computer system up and running. If California does not have a computer system in place by 2002, it will lose over $109 million annually in federal funds. It is simply unfair to levy a $4 billion penalty against California for not having a State Disbursement Unit, when the State's failure to establish the unit is a direct result of a computer failure for which the State is already being penalized. The Child Support Penalty Fairness Act would provide that States could not be penalized for failure to develop centralized disbursement units, if they are already paying a penalty for computer-related problems. Under this bill, California would still have to pay a significant penalty for its computer-related troubles. Moreover, if California gets a statewide computer system in place, but still fails to operate a centralized disbursement unit, the State would be subject to additional severe penalties. This provides powerful incentive for the State to develop both a computer system, and a central disbursement unit, quickly. I believe that this bill is proportionate and fair. It will prompt the State of California to develop a State Disbursement Unit in a timely fashion, without placing aid to low income children and families at risk. It is simply the right thing to do. I hope that my colleagues will take up and pass the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act. This important legislation will remedy a flaw in federal child support laws that could cost California $4 billion annually. On April 30, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its intent to reject the State of California's plan for child and spousal support because California does not have a centralized ``State Disbursement Unit'' that distributes child support collections to families. The mandatory penalty for this failure is loss of all federal child support administrative funding, which amounts to $300 million a year. In addition, because the 1996 welfare reform law requires states to have an approved child support plan in order to receive the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant, California could lose its entire TANF block grant of $3.7 billion a year. In other words, California faces a $4 billion annual penalty for its failure to operate a State Disbursement Unit. This so-called ``nuclear penalty'' is completely unjust and out of proportion. It will devastate the State of California's ability to serve low-income children and families--both families on welfare, and families who need child support so that they can stay off welfare. The penalty also will cripple the State's budget, seriously harming the largest economy in this nation. I am not questioning the value of a State Disbursement Unit, or California's need to develop one. On the contrary, I am urging Governor Davis and the State legislature to come up with a plan to develop a State Disbursement Unit as quickly as possible. But I do not believe that poor families should be severely punished because the State has not gotten its act together. Moreover, California's failure to develop a State Disbursement Unit is a direct result of its failure to develop a statewide computer system that tracks child support cases--and California is already paying a penalty for the computer failure. The computer system penalty, which Congress established just last year, is fair and proportionate. More importantly, it rises over time, giving California a powerful incentive to get a computer system up and running. If California does not have a computer system in place by 2002, it will lose over $109 million annually in federal funds. It is simply unfair to levy a $4 billion penalty against California for not having a State Disbursement Unit, when the State's failure to establish the unit is a direct result of a computer failure for which the State is already being penalized. The Child Support Penalty Fairness Act would provide that States could not be penalized for failure to develop centralized disbursement units, if they are already paying a penalty for computer-related problems. Under this bill, California would still have to pay a significant penalty for its computer-related troubles. Moreover, if California gets a statewide computer system in place, but still fails to operate a centralized disbursement unit, the State would be subject to additional severe penalties. This provides powerful incentive for the State to develop both a computer system, and a central disbursement unit, quickly. I believe that this bill is proportionate and fair. It will prompt the State of California to develop a State Disbursement Unit in a timely fashion, without placing aid to low income children and families at risk. It is simply the right thing to do. I hope that my colleagues will take up and pass the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the heroic men and women of California law enforcement who have given their lives in the line of duty protecting the people of the Golden State. This week, as part of National Police Week, the names of 35 peace officers from California are being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington D.C. Seventeen of those officers lost their lives this past year. We all know of the dangers faced on a daily basis by police officers, sheriff's deputies, and members of the highway patrol. Unfortunately, too many officers make the ultimate sacrifice in the course of doing their job: ensuring the safety and security of our homes, roads, and neighborhoods. It is with the utmost respect for these fallen heroes and the loss suffered by their loved ones that I ask that their names be printed in the Congressional Record, along with the community they served. We owe these men and women a great deal. Please join me in honoring them. The list follows. Oscar A. Beaver--(8/6/1892) Tulare County Sheriff's Office. John Jasper Bogard--(3/30/1895) Tehama County Sheriff's Department. William A. Radford--(10/14/1897) Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. E.E. Dixon--(12/26/1898) Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. Lucius C. Smith--(10/10/1907) Fresno City Police Department. William Lee Blake--(11/25/1911) Shasta County Sheriff's Department. A.B. Chamness--(9/22/1917) Fresno County Sheriff's Department. John W. Reives--(1/14/1921) Shasta County Marshals. William Clarence Dodge--(10/2/1926) King City Police Department. Joseph Clark--(8/30/1936) Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. Martin Clifford Lange--(8/30/1936) Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. Ross Clifford Cochran--(11/19/1951) Tulare County Sheriff's Office. Harvey A. Varat--(10/20/1973) Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Richard D. Schnurr--(11/26/1974) California Department of Parks & Recreation. James Joseph Doyle--(3/23/1974) Ventura College Police Department. Patricia M. Scully--(5/6/1976) California Department of Parks and Recreation. Luella Kay Holloway--(1/3/1980) Coalinga Police Department. George Kowatch III--(11/2/1987) California Department of Parks & Recreation. Steven Gerald Gajda--(1/1/1998) Los Angeles Police Department. Scott Matthew Greenly--(1/7/1998) California Highway Patrol. James John Rapozo--(1/9/1998) Visalia Police Department. Vilho O. Ahola--(2/1/1998) Petaluma Police Department. Ricky Bill Stovall--(2/24/1998) California Highway Patrol. Britt T. Irvine--(2/24/1998) California Highway Patrol. Paul D. Korber--(3/15/1998) Ventura Port District. James Leonard Speer--(4/10/1998) Cailpatria Police Department. David John Chetcuti--(4/25/1998) Millbrae Police Department. Christopher David Lydon--(6/5/1998) California Highway Patrol. Claire Nicole Connelly--(7/12/1998) Riverside Police Department. Filbert Henry Cuesta, Jr.--(8/9/1998) Los Angeles Police Department. Lisa Dianne Whitney--(8/12/1998) Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Brian Ernest Fenimore Brown-- (11/29/1998) Los Angeles Police Department. Sandra Lee Larson--(12/8/1998) Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. Rick Charles Cromwell--(12/9/1998) Lodi Police Department. John Paul Monego--(12/12/1998) Alameda County Sheriff's Office.