Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. Although there is no clarifying language contained in the Senate committee report regarding how the additional $20,000,000 over last year's level would be utilized by the Boys and Girls Clubs, I would hope that the committee's intent was that a significant portion of those additional Boys and Girls Clubs appropriations would be used to cover the cost of establishing the national capital flagship club facility in the Nation's Capital at a site to be selected by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in consultation with the national organization.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for that clarification and I deeply appreciate his strong support for the national capital flagship club facility in Washington. The flagship club will be run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in concert with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and will provide a prototype, technology-based club facility to help troubled youth both here and around the nation.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman while reserving my rights to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, all I ask is that the Senator from Utah be permitted the opportunity to speak following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the amendment is going to be offered on our behalf by the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Alabama to balance the approach between prevention and law enforcement. At the outset, let me commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his outstanding commitment to reducing juvenile crime. His work, I think, has made an outstanding contribution to our efforts. All of us have been shocked over the past several months as our Nation has witnessed a series of atrocious crimes committed by juveniles. These incidents bring home to all of us the reality of juvenile crime. The reality is that we can no longer sit silently by as children kill children, as teenagers commit truly heinous offenses, as our juvenile drug abuse rate continues to climb. FBI data confirms the national problem of rampant juvenile violent crime. In 1996, juveniles accounted for nearly one-fifth--19 percent-- of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 committed 15 percent of all murders, 17 percent of all rapes, and 32.1 percent of all robberies. These disturbing figures show the need to fix a broken juvenile justice system that is failing too many of our young people and ultimately failing to protect the public. Last year, Congress began the process of addressing this serious national problem. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided $250 million for a block grant that promotes a commonsense approach to intervene at the earliest signs of trouble. A juvenile's first brush with the law is the most important, because it sends a strong signal of what he or she can get away with. Governments cannot afford to wait until a youngster is 16 or 17 years old, and has committed a half a dozen or more violent crimes, before getting serious. The block grant funded last year has also promoted making a juvenile's criminal record accessible to police, courts, prosecutors, and schools so that we can know and ascertain who are the serious repeat offenders. Right now, these records simply are not available in NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal records. We all recognize the value of programs that intervene in the lives of juveniles to prevent crime before it starts. The Federal Government already spends about $4.1 billion a year on programs aimed at delinquent and at-risk youth. We are doing some great things through public-private partnerships, through youth groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs, and we are going to continue to do this. I commend Senator Gregg for doubling our effort for this program to $40 million in the bill before us. I do not believe, however, that these programs alone can address the sickness that led to some of these recent tragedies. What we need is to ensure that the prevention programs that we have are backed up by a juvenile justice system that takes crime seriously, and imposes real sanctions for juvenile crime. Congress has given extensive support to delinquency prevention programs, especially since the Republicans took control of Congress. Congress spent over $200 million on the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, OJDP, programs in fiscal year 1998. Compared with fiscal year 1991 funding of $75 million, Congress has increased prevention funding by over two and a half times. The Senate can be proud of its support of prevention programs. We increased prevention funding from $107 million in 1994, up to $144 million in fiscal year 1995. Since then we have steadily increased funding up to its FY 1998 level of over $201 million. In fact, there is no shortage in prevention funding. According to a November 1997, General Accounting Office, GAO, report entitled ``At- Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated Approach,'' the Federal Government currently spends over $4 billion annually in prevention money for juveniles in 127 different Federal programs. In contrast, the Federal Government spends little money on law enforcement and detention for juvenile offenders. The bill before us provides an appropriation for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants of $100 million for fiscal year 1999. This funding level is far too low to meet the needs of our State and local law enforcement. For fiscal year 1998, the grant was set for $250 million. The Senator from Alabama's amendment will help restore funding to critical areas of the juvenile justice system, by reallocating $50 million from what I believe to be an excessive increase in appropriations for the incentive grants for prevention programs under Title V of the JJDPA. This program, funded at $20 million in FY 1998, has been increased over fourfold, to $95 million in the bill before us. Senator Sessions' amendment will shift a part of that increase back to the block grant, so that the Senate will be funding this important program at the same level as it proposed in FY 1998. I must say that, in my view, even this amount will still be inadequate, because the need is so great. First, these incentive block grants fund the construction of permanent juvenile corrections facilities. Such facilities are needed to protect law abiding citizens from violent and repeat offenders. Space in secure detention facilities for serious and violent juvenile offenders is in critically short supply in many of our States. Second, this amendment will provide to aid State and local governments for the integration of serious juvenile criminal records into the national criminal history database, making these delinquency adjudication records available to law enforcement and courts as adult criminal records are now. Right now, these records simply are not available in NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal records. As any judge, police officer, or prosecutor will tell you, information is the lifeblood of the criminal justice system. With respect to juvenile criminal records, the system is anemic. Let me provide my colleagues with an example from just one State of what integrating these records into the adult records system can accomplish. Integrating juvenile offender's fingerprints into the records system in Virginia resulted in a significant improvement in identifying crime suspects. In fact, prints of juveniles make up only one percent of Virginia's automated fingerprint identification system, but this one percent accounts for 18 percent of latent crime scene fingerprint identifications. Third, this amendment helps States provide drug testing for appropriate categories of juvenile offenders. This testing will help authorities to know what crimes are drug driven, to better target treatment, services, and punishment as appropriate. For too long, the Federal Government has neglected to give adequate support to juvenile law enforcement programs. This amendment will help place much needed resources to the law enforcement side of the juvenile justice system. Our current juvenile justice system intervenes too late in the lives of juvenile offenders. All too often, juveniles break the law several times before they are held accountable. Unfortunately, this delay in justice fails to teach youthful offenders the seriousness of their crimes. This chain of events often lead to the tragic juvenile crime newspaper headlines we read in the newspapers nearly every day. We can do better, and the restoration of funds to the juvenile accountability incentive block grant is an important first step. For these reasons, I strongly urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment. I believe the Senator from Alabama has a good amendment here that would go a long way toward solving some of these problems we have in juvenile crime. I do believe that we will bring up the juvenile justice bill shortly after we return in September. At that time, we can debate all of these issues in full specific form. I thank the majority leader for, I think, being willing to do that. I thank my colleague for being willing to bring this amendment up, which I think pushes us down that road toward better juvenile justice than we have had in the past. He has done a terrific job in this area. He has been singular in his dedication and drive and forthrightness in this area. I think we ought to all listen to him and do our best to back him in the things that he is trying to do, as a former prosecutor, as a former U.S. attorney, as somebody who really knows this area very well. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, usually I have some empathy for what my colleague is saying, but this amendment requires both parties to consent before phone calls are being taped. This hasn't been debated before the Judiciary Committee and involves all kinds of ramifications. It is setting a Federal standard where one is not needed, because many States now allow taping by one party. It is brought up only after the Linda Tripp situation. I frankly think it is the wrong thing to do. We are willing to look at this, but we are willing to look into this on the Judiciary Committee, and we certainly will do it. But I think it is the wrong thing to do right now. I don't believe we should federalize this at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds. The way to do this is not to federalize it. Let's at least not impose something on the States without full committee hearings before the Judiciary Committee and find out what should be done. I am not necessarily saying I am rejecting what the Senator said, but I have to reject it under these circumstances. I hope we will reject it.

Mr. HATCH. Probably less, but if the Senator will list 10 minutes, that is fine.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that if my remarks are less than 10 minutes, that it be cut off the time that the Senator asked for.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona. If adopted, the McCain amendment would result in needless, costly delays in the user process to obtain better facilities for the Patent and Trademark Office. Look, we studied this thing to death. We know doggone well if this is delayed again, you are only going to have one bidder instead of three, and there is the question of whether that one bidder will do anything to save any money. In fact, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arizona would cost a lot more money. Let me make my case. The PTO procurement process has been studied to death. We don't need another study. Let me catalog for you the attention that has been paid to this procurement process. The PTO procurement process has been the subject of two comprehensive studies: one by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce and another by an independent consultant who reported to the Secretary of Commerce. The independent consultant was Jefferson Solutions, which is headed by the former director of OMB's Office of Procurement Policy in the Reagan and Carter administrations. Both studies agreed that the competitive lease procurement should proceed so that the PTO can obtain the benefits of competition. Let me emphasize that, from the start, the PTO procurement process followed all the rules and complied with all the safeguards in the Standard Federal Government Procurement Procedures. These studies are in addition to the normal Government procedures. Of course, they do provide for competitive bidding. Mr. President, Senator McCain's amendment calls for a study of the benefits of leasing versus purchase, Federal construction, and other housing alternatives, such as lease purchase. This has already been done. The GSA, the Department of Commerce, and the OMB thoroughly evaluated the options before submitting the lease prospectus for congressional approval. Both the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concurred, when the prospectus was authorized in the fall of 1995, and in light of the limited funds available for capital investment and operating lease of the PTO, that is in the best interest of the PTO's fee-paying customers, which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has raised. Furthermore, in a colloquy between Senators Gregg and Warner conducted on the Senate floor during the vote on H.R. 3579, Senator Gregg agreed that no funds would be available in the foreseeable future to purchase or construct a facility to house the PTO.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. H.R. 3579, which became law, required the Secretary of Commerce to review the project and submit a report to Congress by March of 1998. This is the Jefferson Solutions report that I referred to earlier. The cost-benefit analysis that accompanied it, called the Deva report, showed the PTO will save $72 million over the 20-year life of the lease by consolidating. I don't know about the shower curtains, but that is a lot of money to be saving compared to what we would lose if we went ahead with the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I know he is trying to save money, and I have no problem with that. The Jefferson Solutions report found that the consolidation of PTO space through a competitive lease would improve workflow efficiencies and improve the environment for employee retention, as well as reduce costs. In addition to these studies and reviews, the procurement process has been tested judicially. A 1997 protest by the existing landlord alleging improprieties in the terms and conditions of the procurement was dismissed. Similarly, an unfair labor practice complaint filed by one of the PTO's unions was dismissed earlier this year. Given these numerous studies, reviews, and court tests, why is it that we are here debating this issue yet once again? There appears to be a campaign to delay the procurement process, and I have to ask who is behind it. I don't think it is a matter of $250 shower curtains. I know that Senator McCain is not motivated by a desire to merely delay. I am sure he has real concerns based on facts as he views them. But the fact of the matter is, he is talking about peanuts compared to the millions and millions of dollars that will be lost if we do another study rather than go ahead after all of this work has been done, all the studies have been done. It is crazy. Nevertheless, there has been an ongoing campaign to delay this. Who is behind it? Is it the parties who use the PTO services? No. The parties who use the PTO are the patent applicants, patentees, and trademark registrants. They oppose this amendment, and they want the procurement process to go ahead. But, Mr. President, the current landlord of the PTO makes over $40 million a year from renting space to the PTO. Would 1 year's additional rent be worth mounting a campaign of delay? That is $40 million plus the $72 million we are talking about we lose by another study. I think you can buy a lot of shower curtains for that. It would be to the landlord's benefit to delay it. That is why he has hired a major lobbying firm to kill this process. It is not the public demanding a delay, it is the PTO's current landlord. I can hardly blame him, because he will make $40 million more. But I would blame us if we permitted that to go on just because of some shower curtains and a few other things that the distinguished Senator from Arizona has mentioned. I conclude, Mr. President, with an assurance that I am as concerned as anyone with cost overruns and lavish spending in the procurement process. I am disturbed by allegations of amphitheaters, exercise tracks, and high-priced furniture. I pledge to work with anyone who has a concern about specific excesses in the procurement prospectus. In fact, I intend to support the Inhofe-Brownback amendment that cuts back on build-out appropriations and the ability of the PTO to get more money for moving expenses. Congress should investigate these particular allegations and take a surgical approach. Another comprehensive study, however, is not the answer. Let me just say for the benefit of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, he may have some points here, but they are very, very minor in comparison to the moneys that will be saved by moving ahead rather than having another delay by losing $72 million on one side and $40 million on the other over a few shower curtains. It just seems penny-wise and pound-foolish. I am against this amendment. I hope we defeat it.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is true, but the report language seems to suggest that the Attorney General assume some of these responsibilities. Is this how the Committee meant for its guidance to be interpreted?

Mr. HATCH. As the sponsor, along with the Senator from Delaware, of legislation pending on the floor which would reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and maintain its duty to formulate and implement the National Drug Control Strategy and Performance Measures of Effectiveness System, I agree that the Department of Justice should assist ONDCP in these important tasks.

Mr. HATCH. So, if I correctly understand the Senator from New Hampshire, it is not then the Committee's intent to place the Attorney General in charge of formulating the National Drug Control Strategy?

Mr. HATCH. I also thank the Senator from New Hampshire for addressing my concerns on this issue. graveyard of the atlantic museum

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would ask to engage the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, in a brief colloquy regarding a portion of the report which accompanies the bill, directing the Attorney General to develop a 5-year interdepartmental drug control strategy. Both Senator Biden and I believe that this provision may be misinterpreted, and I request the Senator's assistance in providing some clarification. As a general matter, I have long believed that an effective national drug strategy can best be developed and implemented if we have one responsible official charged with that duty.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds to me? Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the distinguished Senator from Texas to withhold his objection? This should not----

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for being willing to work out this difficulty. There was, I think, a misunderstanding on this matter. We have reached an acceptable compromise that will encourage us to work together on these issues for the benefit of all of our constituents and the affected industries with deliberate speed. I hope that we can work together to fashion a comprehensive reform of the relevant laws and regulations that will increase the range of options that television viewers will have. The rates will be rolled back until early next year; that is, until March 31, when we would hope and expect Congress to be able to adopt meaningful comprehensive reform of the issues affecting the satellite industries and their customers. So, again, I want to thank my colleague for being willing to vitiate the prior vote, being willing to work out this compromise, and I express my desire to work together with him as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I believe my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee will as well with him, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, and hopefully we can resolve the matters in the best interests of all Americans--both individuals and affected industries. And, again, I just express my appreciation. Parliamentary inquiry. Is that modification accepted?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas and his very literal discussion of the grand jury process. It isn't quite as simple as my colleague is explaining. The reason we have a grand jury process and the reason we don't allow attorneys in there is because that process is to remain secret. Under rule 6(e) of the Federal rules, people are not allowed to talk about what happens within the grand jury--certainly the prosecutors are not allowed to talk about it. That doesn't mean they have to be totally, meticulously unable to talk about the cases that they are handling. But basic 6(e) grand jury testimony is not permitted to be talked about, and there is a reason for that. There is a reason for not allowing attorneys into the grand jury proceedings. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas seems to have the opinion that in almost every case, or at least in many cases, prosecutors will act irresponsibly, improperly, will take advantage of witnesses, will abuse the law. And I do not believe that is the case. But one reason why grand jury proceedings have been basically secretive is because, let us say the prosecution was doing a major investigation of organized crime. You can bet your bottom dollar with every witness who goes before that grand jury they would have the same organized crime attorney or attorney representing organized crime or those organized criminals in that grand jury proceeding. Every one of them would want that attorney there, except those who are blowing the whistle on the criminals for whom the grand jury is being held to begin with. In other words, it would be almost impossible to ever get a witness to come forward in grand jury proceedings of any consequence involving organized crime, and sometimes not so organized crime, because the minute that person appeared, it would be known who literally was testifying against the people whom the prosecutors were trying to bring the actions against. So it isn't quite as simple as the distinguished Senator has said, although I share some of his concerns. If there is any evidence that grand jury proceedings have been used to abuse witnesses or have been used to seduce witnesses into incriminating themselves, or have been used to ask questions that are irrelevant, such as some of those suggested by my distinguished colleague, then, yes, I agree with him, something ought to be done to prevent those types of things from happening, and perhaps we should look at this whole area. On the other hand, we have suggested to him that the way to do this would be, of course, to let the judicial conference look at this and make recommendations and really look at all sides of this issue so we do not go into this half cocked and throw out a system that has served this country well over 200 years just because there are some alleged occasional prosecutors who might abuse the process. It is not quite as simple as people try to make it seem. The grand jury proceeding has served this country well for well over 200 years. And, yes, some of these issues that are raised are ones that trouble me as well. But before we throw this out and before we decide to allow attorneys in the room, then it seems to me we ought to at least have a thorough study to determine whether throwing it out is the thing to do, whether that is going to really be a better process than what we have today. I don't think it will be. But it does not take many brains to realize the current grand jury process is one-sided. The prosecutor can present whatever the prosecutor wants. And unscrupulous prosecutors can bring an indictment against almost anybody by just basically asking the grand jury to do it, because there is nobody in there to represent the rights of the accused. The distinguished Senator does raise some very important issues, but I would prefer that we look at this in a very broad-based study that really looks at the pros, the cons, the good, the bad, and helps us to make a determination here. If, after a study like that, we find that the distinguished Senator is primarily right, and that there are many injustices that occur through grand jury proceedings, then I would be the first to join him in making the changes that he would request here this evening. But frankly, I think that is the type of thing that should be done, that should be done carefully and deliberately. And we should not throw out 200 years of history and 200 years of grand jury proceedings that have served this country at least ostensibly very well because we are concerned that there may be some abuses of this particular process in some instances. My experience has been that there are very seldom abuses, that the system works well, that it is a system that can bring indictments against those who deserve indictments brought against them; and especially in the area of organized crime, it is a very useful and worthwhile system. Having said that, that does not mean that I am ignoring what my distinguished friend and colleague has said or what he believes, because I myself have some concerns, as he does. Personally, I believe that in most instances it is a good thing to give people the right to have their counsel there. And remember, grand jury proceedings can bring down indictments but they cannot convict people. On the other hand, once the indictment is brought down, that amounts to a criminal defense that must be waged in almost every case. So I hope that I can talk my colleague into having a major, major review and study of this rather than doing something that literally throws out the system or at least changes the system dramatically in such a way that might have very detrimental effects in our getting to the bottom of organized crime, to the bottom of organized criminal conduct with regard to drugs, to the bottom of criminal activity in general where witnesses might be intimidated or afraid to even appear before grand juries. The more we do this, I think the more we are going to find that some of those concerns may outweigh some of the concerns that the distinguished Senator has, because I do not believe that you can point to many instances as a whole--as a whole--where the feelings or complaints of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas are actually fulfilled. Currently, all witnesses may leave the grand jury proceeding or grand jury room to consult with their attorneys anytime they want. Now the Senator makes a good point when he says, How is that person going to know whether they are incriminating themselves if they are not skilled in the law, if you have a skillful grand jury prosecutor in there asking questions? And that is a tough question to answer. But the fact of the matter is that if they have an attorney to begin with, that attorney is going to say, ``Don't answer anything unless you talk to me, so tell them after each question you want to come out and talk to me.'' That has been my experience where you have attorneys who are concerned about their clients going in before the grand jury. And there is a way to be represented by an attorney to not say one word or to answer one question without continuously going out and discussing it with your attorney. So there is a protection. The difference is that, if I am correct--and I believe I am--there are instances where the grand jury proceeding works better than any other system we have ever had, especially in the area of organized crime. I would be very hesitant to throw out that system without the study by those who are experts in this field and those who really can make a difference in determining just what is right and what is wrong here. But having said that, I have raised these concerns. I hope my colleague will consider having a study. I would join with him in that. We can place a limited period of time on it, and if that study proves to augment his feelings and proves his thesis here, then I may very well join with him in making the changes that he would like to make here today. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment offered by the Senator from California, and to join Senator Craig in offering our own amendment on this issue. I want to commend my colleague for raising the issue of firearms safety, but I believe that there is a better approach to this issue than the one size fits all, Washington knows best proposal offered by the Senator from California. At the outset, let me say that I understand the strongly held views of my colleagues. My colleagues who are offering this amendment are searching for easy answers and quick fixes to the tragedies of juvenile crime and firearms accidents. I would tell them this: there are no easy answers, and there are no quick fixes. In the face of difficult problems, it is always tempting to look for easy answers. I do not believe that we should succumb to this temptation. We can pass another federal law adding this gun control measure or that, but the problem won't go away. Because, Mr. President, the problem isn't guns, or a lack of safety devices, or the lack of any other gun control measure. We are faced, I believe, with a problem which cannot be solved by the enactment of more federal gun control laws. It is at its core a moral problem. Somehow, in too many instances, we have failed as a society to pass along to the next generation the moral compass that differentiates right from wrong. This cannot be legislated. It will not be restored by the enactment of a new law or the implementation of a new program. But it can be achieved by communities working together to teach accountability by example and by early intervention when the signs clearly point to violent and antisocial behavior, as seems to be the case in some of these tragedies. Now, I would like to debate this issue. I think the Senate should be debating juvenile crime legislation. The Judiciary Committee spent eight weeks last summer marking up the most comprehensive reform of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in that law's twenty- five year history. We could debate how to restore accountability to a broken juvenile justice system. We could debate how to fix a broken system that fails too many of our young people, so that it protects society. But we are not doing that. Instead, we will debate more gun control. I should note for my colleagues that this particular provision has already been debated. The Judiciary Committee considered it last summer, and defeated it. Well, here it is again. So, we will debate it yet again. This amendment would require a particular safety device to be sold with every firearm. My colleagues who are considering supporting this amendment should understand that no safety device is a substitute for firearm safety training and responsible firearm handling. Relying on a trigger lock as a panacea for firearm safety is irresponsible and short-sighted. As an initial matter, there is no locking device that can be placed on a loaded firearm which can render it failsafe. Most locking device manufacturers specifically advise against the use of locking devices on a loaded gun. Requiring firearm manufacturers and licensed gun dealers to provide locking devices may send a dangerous message to the American public that it is ``OK'' to use the locking device on a loaded firearm. In fact, tests show that a loaded firearm affixed with a locking device can still fire. Requiring manufacturers to provide trigger locks with each firearm, therefore, takes a ``one size fits all'' approach to firearm safety. Because of firearm design differences, not all firearms can be properly safeguarded with a trigger lock. Firearms safety training emphasizes personal responsibility in handling a firearm. Education and safety training has been instrumental in lowering firearm accidents and accidental deaths to its lowest point since 1904 (National Safety Council, Accidental Facts, 1996). In 1995 alone, accidental firearm fatalities fell 7%. Due in large part to firearms education, promoted by organizations like the National Rifle Association, the Hunter Education Association, and other volunteer groups, firearms were involved in 1.5% of all accidental deaths nationwide. This percentage is lower than deaths due to motor vehicle accidents (47%), falling (13.5%), poisoning (11.4%), fire 4.4%), and choking (3%) (National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics). Additionally, different circumstances dictate how an individual stores his firearm. While some people may choose to lock their firearms in a safe, someone else may choose to keep their firearm readily accessible for self-protection. Thus, locking devices may or may not be compatible with a person's lifestyle and reason for owning a firearm. Mr. President, safety locks are already widely available, as are a wide range of other firearms safety devices. Industry is already making strides in offering these devices for sale. We do not need yet another federal mandate imposing a one size fits all safety ``solution'' on America's law abiding gun owners. Instead, I offer my colleagues an alternative. My proposal will do far more to promote true firearms safety, and it is far more respectful of the common sense of the American people, than my friend's proposal. My amendment does three things. First, it expands the definition of safety devices to include not only devices that render a firearm temporarily unusable, but also temporarily inaccessible. As a result, my second degree amendment includes safety devices, such as safes and lock boxes, that do not disable a firearm, but make it at least temporarily inaccessible to a person. Second, my amendment requires that vendors have safety devices available for sale, but it does not require that a vendor sell a safety device along with every firearm. Having them available for sale will help to ensure that purchasers will obtain, and thereafter will use, a safety device, without necessarily increasing the cost of the purchase. The Administration's provision embodied in my colleague's proposal would increase the cost of purchasing a firearm, which is unnecessary. Some safety devices, such as a safe or lock box, can hold more than one firearm, so there is no need to require that a person buy a new safety device if buying a second firearm. Third, my amendment helps to ensure that this new requirement is entirely tort neutral. The amendment provides that it does not establish a standard of care, and it further states that evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this requirement is inadmissible in court. The amendment therefore does not help or hurt a plaintiff or a defendant. Finally, my amendment helps to ensure that state and local law enforcement authorities can train members of the public in the safe possession, carry, and use of firearms. This is valuable. Training is the best way to ensure that firearms are treated with respect, but not with fear. Firearms handling is an important part of the training process for every soldier and every law enforcement officer, and it can be a valuable tool for private citizens. After all, about 34 States-- including my home state of Utah--now empower citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Allowing Byrne grant funds to be used by state and local law enforcement agencies to train the public in the safe handling of firearms will make a positive contribution to safety and to crime prevention. Taken together, all of these provisions deal with the issue of firearms safety in a far better manner than the amendment offered by my colleague. Moreover, this is the provision adopted by the Judiciary Committee last year, during the mark-up of S. 10, the Juvenile crime bill. I urge my colleagues to agree with the considered judgment of the Judiciary Committee, and support my alternative to this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current controversy over whether Secret Service agents and employees should testify before the grand jury convened by the Independent Counsel, Judge Kenneth Starr. At noon today, the Chief Justice of the United States denied the Department of Justice's request for a stay of the order compelling Secret Service agents to comply with subpoenas. Thus, every level of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has now rejected the arguments advanced by the Department of Justice in support of a judicially-created ``protective function'' privilege. I sincerely hope that the Service and the Department will abide by these decisions and that the agents will testify truthfully and fully before the grand jury. In my view, the Secret Service's duty to protect the President does raise legitimate issues about whether agents should receive special privileges before being forced to disclose what they see or hear as a result of being so physically close to the President. However, the Department of Justice has taken these legitimate factual concerns and used them for political reasons to mount a fruitless legal battle to find a court, any court, to concoct this privilege out of thin air. In so doing, at least in my opinion, the Department has squandered its own credibility and acted solely as the defense attorney for the President in his personal legal problems. The trial judge and the D.C. Circuit have it right: there is no way for a court to conjure up a ``protective function'' privilege out of whole cloth. The Court of Appeals which rejected the Department's arguments concluded: We leave to Congress the question whether a protective function privilege is appropriate in order to ensure the safety of the President and, if so, what the contours of that privilege should be. I have offered to lead such an effort in the Congress to craft a narrow privilege, and therefore I am at a loss as to the Department's motivations for so many appeals. I am worried, however, that the lengthy obstruction will lead my colleagues to conclude that the Service is not worthy of our support, and make it much more difficult for me to try to help them. The narrow privilege I envision would address legitimate concerns of the Secret Service, but I am sure it would not be the broad, impenetrable privilege advocated by the Service, nor should it be. But a Congressional solution which ``splits the baby'' is possible. As the Washington Post concluded in an editorial this morning: Any protection must recognize the responsibility of law enforcement officers to aid criminal investigations. I hope that the circumstances when testimony by Secret Service agents is taken are limited to the most serious cases where the testimony is unique and directly related to accusations of criminal behavior. I am concerned, for example, that agents should not, under normal circumstances, be forced to testify before Congressional Committees or in civil matters. Again, I plan to address these issues when the Judiciary Committee holds hearings next year. One particular issue I will address during these hearings is whether the presence of a Secret Service agent at a conversation between an attorney and the protected person should negate the attorney-client privilege. Now the law generally is that having another non-lawyer present voids the privilege, at least as to that person. I do not believe we want this outcome, and I plan to work on creating an exception to correct this problem. I should point out that press accounts have recounted promises made by Judge Starr that he will not attempt to use testimony by Secret Service personnel to pierce protected conversations. I have to also add that if Secret Service Agent Cockell was in the President's presence because he had to be in the car to protect the President, and overheard conversations between the President and Mr. Bennett, his attorney, or between the President and Mr. Kendall, his attorney, or any other attorney of the President's, he had to be there as much as the seat they sat on had to be there. So I hope, even though technically the privilege would be waived because of Secret Servant Agent Cockell, I hope the Independent Counsel would respect that particular position of the Secret Service agent, and I have no doubt that he would. After all, there is some comity that must occur, even in matters like these. In any event, that is something we can clarify next year, and I intend to do so. I have to say, neither attorney Robert Bennett nor David Kendall is an inexperienced attorney. I doubt if either of them would have discussed crucial secret matters with the President before anybody else, including a Secret Service agent. So I think this is a much overblown point, and I have no doubt that Judge Starr did not intend to pierce that type of conversation anyway. But that still does not relieve the Secret Service agents of their duty as law enforcement officers to make sure that criminal activity is not undertaken or, if it is undertaken, to make sure that they do everything they can to stop it. I should note, however, that the Secret Service has been its own worst enemy here. No court is going to create this privilege out of thin air, and thus until Congress acts, the Service may have to provide testimony without any exceptions. I am talking about this so-called ``protective function'' privilege. But rather than come to Congress to work constructively, the Service has fought a futile effort in the courts of this land. Many of the President's apologists have cited this current controversy as another alleged example of Judge Starr being too aggressive in his search for evidence related to the Lewinsky matter. But let's look at the record: When Judge Starr sought evidence from White House employees, the Justice Department and the White House claimed privilege: the court sided with Starr. When Judge Starr sought evidence from government attorneys, the Justice Department and the White House claimed privilege: the court sided with Starr. When Judge Starr sought evidence from Secret Service agents, the Service and the Department claimed privilege: the court sided with Starr. When Judge Starr sought evidence from Monica Lewinsky's first attorney, he claimed privilege: the court sided with Starr. When Judge Starr sought evidence from a bookstore, it claimed privilege: the court sided with Starr. And just over the last 48 hours when Judge Starr sought evidence from additional Secret Service personnel, the Justice Department and the White House claimed privilege: the District Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court all sided with Starr. I hope when the pundits talk about these controversies, they remember that, when it comes to debates on privileges, Judge Starr has an impressive record. It is easy to criticize a prosecutor for being overly-aggressive in seeking evidence, but let us all remember that Judge Starr has not only a right, but an obligation, to conduct a complete investigation within the bounds of the law. As demonstrated by his impeccable record before impartial judges, he has done exactly that. Lastly, it is hard to believe that the same White House that less than six weeks ago fought Judge Starr's request to have the Supreme Court take an expedited appeal of the Secret Service issue--and then gloated when the Supreme Court denied the request--resorted to an emergency appeal to the exact same court on the same issue. The hypocrisy speaks for itself. Mr. President, I have confidence that Judge Starr will do what is right here. I have confidence that the Secret Service men and women will do what is right here. There is no excuse for the Justice Department--nor, I might add, the Treasury Department--to continue to pursue these fruitless claims. I was willing to go along with the pursuit of the claims to try to get the court involved en banc--the 11 sitting judges of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia--to make a decision on this. But anything beyond that just smacks of delay, and I believe that is exactly what is happening, especially since the White House has been slapped down so hard and the Justice Department has been slapped down in no uncertain terms, a number of times, on this very issue. I think it is time for them to wake up and realize they represent all of the taxpayers in this country and that they have an obligation to live within the law themselves and to not make any further frivolous appeals of this matter. It is my understanding that they still are asking for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this matter. I can't imagine why they would do that after what they have seen in both the district court and now the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and with the rejection of the stay by Justice Rehnquist. It seems to me that just smacks of another fruitless appeal for delay. I do understand why the head of the Secret Service and others would fight for their Secret Service people and would try to take it to the nth degree. But that nth degree, it seems to me, ended with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anything more than that seems to me to be highly frivolous, a delaying tactic that literally should not be done. I think the Secret Service ought to come to us and help us to fashion a way so they can have certain protections with regard to the closeness that they have to the President of the United States, and we will try to give them that kind of protection. We will try to find some way of giving them a privilege from testifying in matters that do not involve criminal activity, among other things. We will have to have hearings, and we will have to look at it very carefully, because it is a broad privilege they are asking for. They will never get exactly what they want, because I think people on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge that if it comes to criminal activity, if there is any criminal activity that they have observed or they participated in--and I doubt they have done anything like that, and I hope they haven't observed any criminal activity--they have an obligation, as law enforcement officers, to cooperate with the courts and to cooperate in getting to the bottom of these things and getting these matters resolved. With that, I thank my colleagues for letting me have this time. I yield the floor.