J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that. Why don't I take another 5 or 10 minutes here.

Mr. KERREY. I would very much like to accommodate and do that, but my problem is----

Mr. KERREY. Yes.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me describe an event that occurred on September 11, 1998. Maybe colleagues didn't notice it; it was written up with a fairly small amount of attention. There was an 18-year-old Russian sailor who seized control of a Russian nuclear submarine near Murmansk. He killed seven fellow crewmembers and held control of the submarine for 20 hours. Russian authorities say that there were no nuclear weapons aboard the submarine. But it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario in which a similarly distraught member of the Russian navy might choose to express his frustration by seizing control of a submarine loaded with long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles. It is widely recognized that command and control of weapons on Russian submarines is much more problematic than even with their ground-based forces. There was a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which conducted an analysis of the effects of an unauthorized launch against the United States from a--and I emphasize just one--Russian Delta IV submarine. This submarine is capable of carrying 16 SS-N-23 missiles. Each of these missiles is equipped with four 100-kiloton warheads. The study examined the consequences of 48 warheads being detonated over eight major U.S. cities. It is likely that this scenario may not be right. It is likely that they would say we have 64 warheads and will put one in each State in the United States of America--that leaves me 14 more--and they will put a couple in New York, a couple in Florida, a couple in other States. Imagine 64,000 kiloton weapons being detonated within a couple of hours in the United States. That is a scenario that could be very real. Is such a scenario likely to happen? It is less likely to happen than the sun coming up tomorrow, but it could happen. It is a scenario that we need to think about as we think about the danger of these nuclear weapons. And because we don't think about them, it is not likely that we will consider an amendment like this terribly important. We will sort of drift along, as I think we are doing now, saying we are going to wait for the Duma to ratify START II. They are threatening not to ratify for every possible reason. I don't know what the next anger point is going to be. I personally don't believe that the ratification of START II by the Duma is necessarily terribly important. That we need to look for an alternative way to reduce these threats, to me, is painfully obvious if you examine the danger that this threat poses to us. When you think about the danger of an accidental or a rogue nation or a sabotage launch, I think you come immediately to the conclusion that, my gosh, we have far more than we need to keep America safe, and the Russians clearly have far more than they need not only to keep their country safe but to reduce this risk of accidental launch. They do not control their weapons in the same way that we do. They don't have the capacity to control them in the same way that we do, as well. Imagine, I ask my colleagues; put it on your radar screen. You have a Delta IV submarine with 64 100-kiloton weapons that could be in the United States in 2 hours. They are not like the Chinese nuclear weapons. The Chinese nuclear weapons take several days to get together. Again, part of the published reports is that they have 13 or so aimed at the United States--aimed at our cities. They are nowhere near as accurate as the Russians, or as deadly as the Russians, and nowhere near as likely to be launched either through an accidental launch or through an organized effort to come through sabotage and take over a single facility, or to take over one of these submarines that are much more at risk as a consequence of their lax security. If you do not think the scenario is possible, I would like to quote the words of former a Russian Navy captain following this particular incident with the Russian sailor that I described earlier on the 11th of September 1998. He said, ``It is really scary that one day the use of nuclear arms may depend on the sentiments of someone who is feeling blue, who has gotten out of bed on the wrong side and who does not feel like living.'' The probability of this today is higher than ever before. The news has been filled recently with stories regarding nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the stories have been causing us to be concerned about our security relative to the Nation of China. The findings that China, over the past 20 years, has methodically stolen U.S. nuclear secrets from our National Laboratories are very disturbing, to put it mildly. We were very lax in our security in our Laboratories. We are very lax in our security with our export control licenses. We are very lax in our security in monitoring satellites that are being launched on the Long March system of the Chinese, and as a consequence, the United States of America suffers. There is no question that is true. But U.S. security has suffered against a nation with considerably less capability than Russia and considerably less risk of an accidental launch as a result of the way the two nations organize their weapon systems. In the uproar surrounding this story, I fear that we may be losing touch with reality concerning the size of the threat we face in China relative to the far greater Russian nuclear threat. Press accounts indicate that China may have no more than 20 land-based nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States. Also, again, according to the media, as I said, Chinese nuclear weapons aren't kept on continual alert. Their nuclear warheads and liquid fuel tanks are stored separate from their missiles. Again, it would take them a considerable amount of time to fuel, to arm, and to launch these weapons. That just one of these weapons would cause immense pain and devastation to the United States of America ought to be obvious. But, again, it is a much smaller threat than the threat of an accidental rogue nation, or a sabotage takeover of a Russian site that could be launched with a devastating impact against the United States of America and would put our people at considerable risk. As of January 1999, my colleagues, with reference to this issue--I remember campaigning for the Senate in 1988. In 1988, you had to know all of this stuff. You had to know all of these in numbers, because arms control advocates were asking you, and opponents of arms control were asking. The freeze was going on. The MX missile was being debated. It was a hot issue in 1988. In 1999, it is not a hot issue. It is not on the radar screen. You have to hunt around to find someone who cares about it and asks you about it and express a concern about what I, again, consider to be the most dangerous threat to the people of the United States of America. I repeat that this is the only threat that could kill every single American. Just a single Delta IV submarine that I talked about earlier--you put 64 100-kiloton weapons on top of 64 sites in the United States of America, and you are no longer the strongest economy on Earth. We would have considerably more, to put it mildly, than 4.2 percent unemployment. We would not be screaming along with an economic recovery. The stock market would react, I would hazard a guess, rather adversely to that piece of news. There would be devastation and destruction and considerable loss of life, and the United States of America would be set back a considerable amount of time. We would not be as safe and as secure as we once were, and the world, as consequence, would suffer the loss of our leadership. A single Delta IV submarine owned by the Russians in a very insecure environment, in my judgment, would set the U.S. back considerably. I keep citing it only because I believe that we have taken nuclear weapons, unfortunately, off our radar screen, and we don't think about this much. I say to the distinguished chairman and to the ranking member, Senator Levin, and Senator Smith, who is the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, that I know each of you are very concerned about this. I am talking about the general population. I would hazard a guess that if one of these news media outlets that does polls all the time did a poll and asked the question about whether the Chinese nuclear threat is a greater threat to the United States of America than the Russian nuclear threat, it is likely to be that a large number of the people would say yes, given what they have heard recently in the news. China may evolve into a serious military threat to the United States in the future. They are unquestionably a proliferator of weapons, and all of us should be dismayed and angry at the lax security that we have discovered through the Cox report and other reports over the last 20 years, and should move with legislation and action to tighten up and make sure that we reduce that threat. But the Chinese threat is nowhere near the danger that the Russian nuclear threat poses to the people of the United States of America. What I am attempting to do with this amendment by striking the floor that we have imposed for 3 years in a row in the defense authorization bill--this provision that prohibits the United States from going below START I force levels until START II enters into force--is that I am suggesting that this floor increases the threat to the United States of America because we are waiting for the Russian Duma to ratify START II. We are still, in my view, in the old way of thinking about how to deal with nuclear weapons and how to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and keep the people of the United States of America safe. Let me provide a little bit of history of arms control. Again, the chairman of the committee asked for some time to respond. Earlier, I was asked if I was going to wrap this thing up at 11:45. I say to my friend from Virginia that I had much more to say on this matter, and it may be that I am not able to agree to a time agreement and have the vote at 11:45. I would like to be able to do that. Maybe what I should try to do is abbreviate my comments and give the chairman a chance to respond briefly, if he chooses to do so. I see the chairman of the subcommittee is here. He may have some opposing points of view that he would like to offer. I want to give him a chance to do that. I think it is highly unlikely that I will be able to agree to a vote immediately after the BRAC vote at 11:45.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I yield to the Senator from California such time as she needs.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will do the same.

Mr. KERREY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, again, this amendment strikes language that requires the United States of America to make its determination about how many strategic weapons we will have based upon a decision by the Russian Duma to ratify START II. Some have described this amendment as encouraging unilateral disarmament. Nothing could be further from the truth. We make unilateral decisions and we decide what our forces are going to look like. On that basis, this entire bill is a unilateral decision. We haven't consulted with the Russians to determine what our Army is going to look like, how many divisions we will have, how many wings we will have in our Air Force. We have not made any consultation nor have we given the Russians a veto over any other part of our defense except for strategic defenses. There we say that even if, as is the case, we have former STRATCOM commanders--in this case, Eugene Habiger--saying we would be well advised to go to a lower level, it would keep the United States of America safer than we currently are. As a consequence not only of measuring accurately how many nuclear weapons we needed in our triad-- the land, sea and air-based system that we developed over the years-- the greatest threat of nuclear attack to the United States of America is not China, is not an authorized launch by the Nation of Russia, it is an unauthorized launch. That risk has increased over the past few years as the Russian economy declines. As a consequence of that decline, they have decreased capacity to control their systems. This is not a small item. This is a significant threat to the United States of America. One of the points I have tried to make is that we have been lulled into a false sense of complacency as a consequence of the end of the cold war. Statements are made that we are no longer targeting the Russians, nor they us. In the past, I have not supported an early deployment of the strategic defense initiative, of missile defense. I have come to the conclusion as a consequence of this threat and others that the United States of America should. That is a unilateral decision. We made that decision not based upon what the Russians wanted but what we believed was in our best interest to keep America safe. That is how we ought to make our decisions about what our level is going to be of our force structure for nuclear weapons. Not only are the people of the United States of America at greater risk as a consequence of forcing the Russians to maintain 6,000 at the end of 2001, but we are laboring under the optimistic scenario that maybe the Russians will ratify START II, in which case we can go to lower levels. But even at START II levels, the Russians would not be to 3,500 warheads until 2007. We have to put an awful lot of our national security chips in the possibility that Russia will be in better shape in 2007 than it is today. These weapons systems are much more dangerous than the weapons systems in vogue today. There are serious threats from chemical weapons, from biological weapons, from weapons of mass destruction in that category, serious threats from terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, serious threats as well that come from cyberwarfare and other sorts of things we are having conferences on all the time. China is unquestionably a threat, especially in the area of proliferation. But none of these, or all of them taken together, combined, are as big a threat as unauthorized launch of Russian nuclear weapons. I hope, regardless of how this amendment turns out, the Senate will turn its attention to dealing with this threat. I think we are much better off dealing with that threat with a different strategy than the old arms control strategy. This is not an amendment that says we are going to tie our national security to START I or START II. Quite the contrary, I do not expect START II to be ratified in the next couple of years, if that, if it ever is ratified by the Duma. We should not hold up our national security decisions based upon what we expect or do not expect the Russian Duma to do. I would like to describe some of these weapons systems so people can understand the danger of them, the kind of destruction they could do to the United States of America. The Russians have in their land-based system 3,590 warheads. They have in their sea-based system 2,424 warheads. They have in their air-based 564. Just take one of these. Think, if you have a disgruntled, angry group of Russian soldiers or sailors or airmen who say: We have not been paid for a year; we are despondent; we do not think we have any future; we are suicidal. We are going to take over one of these sites, and we are going to launch. We are not going to blackmail the United States; we are not going to try to get them to do anything; all we are going to do is launch, because we are angry and we do not like the direction of our country and we do not like what the United States of America is doing. Let me just take the SS-18. I am not going to go through the details of where these are. I am not going to describe for colleagues a scenario to take one of them over. I am not going to build a case, but I think I could build a case, that an SS-18 site is not as secure today as it was 5 years ago. That lack of security should cause every American to be much more worried than they are about the threat of China or other things we talk about and put a great deal of energy into describing. The SS-18 is a MIRV'd nuclear system. It has 10 warheads on each one of its missiles, and each one of these warheads has 500 to 750 kilotons. If you put one of those in the air and hit 10 American cities--I earlier had a chart showing what a 100-kiloton warhead would do to the city of Chicago. Nobody should suffer any illusion of what the consequences to the United States of America would be if 10 of our cities were hit with a 500- to 750-kiloton warhead. You say it is not likely to happen. Lots of things are not likely to happen that have happened. That is what we do with national security planning. We do not plan for those things that are most likely to happen. We plan for those things that are least likely to happen, because the least likely thing is apt to be the one that does the most damage, and that is exactly what we are talking about here. You do not have to kill every single American. If you put 10 nuclear warheads with 500 to 750 kilotons of payload on 10 American cities, I guarantee the United States of America is not the superpower we are today. Imagine the devastation it would do to our economy. Imagine the emergency response that is required. Imagine all sorts of things. This country would not be the same as it is today if that were to happen. It is a terrible scenario. It is one we used to talk about way back in the 1980s. I remember campaigning in 1988. We had a big portion of our debate about nuclear weapons and the danger of nuclear weapons and what are we going to do to keep the United States of America safe. The most vulnerable of the Russian triad are their nuclear submarines. I went through it earlier. A Delta IV submarine has 64 100-kiloton warheads on it. You could put 1 in each State and have 14 left over to pick some States you might put 2 or 3 on top of. This is a real risk. Is it likely to happen? No. The likelihood is low. But low is not comforting when you are thinking about something such as that. Low should not give any American citizen comfort. I just heard somebody say it is not likely to happen; it is a low likelihood it is going to happen. In the State of Nebraska, it is not likely a tornado is going to hit tonight. But tornadoes hit there relatively frequently. We look up at the sky and say, ``It is blue; it does not look to me like a storm is coming,'' but storms hit out there just like that, and great destruction and devastation has occurred as a consequence. We have been lulled into a false sense of complacency about the Russian nuclear system and, as a consequence, we have not tried to figure out an alternative strategy. We need an alternative strategy. The Russian Duma is not going to ratify START II. I am here today to predict that is not going to happen. We should not in our defense authorization say we are not going to take any action that might make America safer because we want to wait for the Russians to ratify START II. This amendment is described by some opponents as unilateral disarmament. It is not. It is no more unilaterally disarming than anything else we have in our defense authorization. We do not make decisions about what we are going to do for this Nation's security based upon what Russia is going to do in any other area of defense. I cited earlier, I supported missile defense even though some said if we have missile defense, if we have an early deployment of missile defense, the Russians are going to do this, that, or the other thing, including maybe not ratifying START II. We did not make that decision based upon wondering what the Russians are going to do. We need to make national security decisions based upon what we think is in the best interests of the United States of America, to keep our people safe. This amendment does that. The President has indicated he supports this amendment. He would like to get this limitation taken off. He does not have any plans to take action. I encourage him to do so. I think it is in our interests to think about taking our levels lower. I think the Russians would reciprocate. And even if they did not, the United States of America would still be safer as a consequence, by measurement of people who are a lot smarter and a lot more knowledgeable than I am on this subject. For fiscal reasons, for reasons of scarce resources that need to be applied into our conventional readiness and things that our Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Army are more likely to have to be called upon to meet, for reasons of trying to reduce the risk of unauthorized launch that would be devastating to the United States of America, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give this amendment their full consideration and I hope they vote for it. A vote for this amendment is not a vote for unilateral disarmament. A vote for this amendment is a vote for the United States of America deciding what we think is in our best interests in national security and then authorizing accordingly in a defense authorization bill. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from California wishes to speak. The Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, earlier said he would like to be a cosponsor. I am not sure he has been listed as a cosponsor. Senator Kennedy as well, Senator Boxer as well, and Senator Biden as well.

Mr. KERREY. I think we should be able to finish this up in an hour. I have four people on our side who want to speak. I don't know if they will all get to the floor. If they don't, they are aware of what is going on. I have no more than 15 or 20 minutes of closing remarks myself. I think we can wrap it up in an hour.

Mr. KERREY. We can do it in 40 minutes and probably less than that.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia did not state this. Does this mean there will be no amendments offered prior to the vote on my amendment?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I regret that Senators are on opposite sides of this issue, but we clearly are. I have offered this amendment because I believe our current strategy to deal with the threat of nuclear weapons is flawed in many serious ways. First of all, this amendment has the support of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary Cohen. They have not announced any intent to go below the START I levels, but we are not asking for unilateral disarmament. We make decisions about how many men and women we are going to have in our Armed Forces, how big our Navy is going to be, how big our Army is going to be, our Marine Corps, our Air Force is going to be. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. Nobody accused President Bush of unilateral disarmament at the end of the cold war when he drew our defense forces down. I happen to believe we have gone too far. I support reinvigorating our Armed Forces. I don't support giving the Russian Duma a veto over that decision. That is basically what this is all about. I do not know whether the President would exercise the authority, but in my view this amendment would allow the President to make a decision independently and say, this is the level of nuclear weapons that we need. I have heard knowledgeable patriots who have served their country, who have spent a great deal of time on this subject, say to me that we are, as a consequence of this law, maintaining a level higher than we need to keep the people of the United States of America safe, spending money that is needed in other areas, especially in the conventional area, forcing the Russians to maintain a level of nuclear weapons higher than their economy gives them the capacity to control, and dramatically increasing the risk of an unauthorized launch as a consequence. That is the new risk. In the old days when we had arms control agreements--and I am not as optimistic about arms control agreements any longer. The Senator from Virginia asked if I supported the policy inherent in this language. Frankly, I do not believe START II is going to be ratified by the Duma. And even if it is, it has been overtaken by events, in my judgment. Even at that level, the Russians would be required to maintain a force structure of nuclear weapons that their economy does not allow them to safely maintain. I think we would see continued deterioration and continued increased risk to the people of the United States of America not from a hypothetical risk here. All of our armed services have been vaccinated now against anthrax. The Chairman knows there are conferences about all kinds of new threats that are very real and very present. But there is no threat greater than the threat of Russian nuclear weapons. There is no threat that would arrive here faster, that would arrive here more accurately and more deadly than any one of a number of weapons systems that I could describe in the Russian nuclear arsenal. In my view, what this does, quite the contrary to unilateral disarmament, is it allows the United States of America to decide what is in our interests. If I had reached a conclusion that I thought we ought to have 10,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal, that that was in our interests, I would be on the floor arguing that we ought to; that rather than having a 6,000 floor, we ought to say that arms control is not going to work at all. If the Russians were doing something that caused me to conclude that I thought we ought to have a higher level, I would argue for that. I am arguing that the United States of America should make its own decisions when it comes to nuclear weapons. And right now, in my view, that decision would cause us to go below the statutory floor that we currently have and a further benefit would occur as a consequence enabling us to reduce the threat of an unauthorized launch. Again, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman and admire his work and agree with him on lots of things that are in this bill, but I come to the floor to offer this amendment because I believe very passionately that it will make the people of the United States of America safer and more secure if it is adopted.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I thank the chairman, Mr. President. The largest gun dealer in the State of Nebraska is Guns Unlimited. The owner of that operation is a man by the name of Tom Nichols. I turned to Tom when this legislation was first introduced and when the issue of gun control came up because I trust him. I believe that he understands what works and what does not work. As I said on this amendment when I first came to the floor, I have supported things that work. If I believe it is going to make the public safer, I will support it. If I don't think it will work, and that all we are doing is sort of a political figleaf, which happens from time to time on these issues, then I am not going to support it, because all we are going to do is add regulatory friction or interference with people who are law-abiding citizens, and it is just an irritant; it does not do anything other than perhaps make our press releases sound a little bit better. But I asked Tom about this amendment. I have great respect for the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Vermont. I think they have come a long way in closing the loophole on pawnshops, which is very important, because oftentimes people who are criminals or who have guns that they have stolen will go to a pawnshop and pawn the gun. They need to have a background check done. There is still a significant weakness in this amendment. Again, I urge colleagues to vote for the Smith-Jeffords amendment--or is it Jeffords-Smith, whatever it is. I urge them to vote for that and to vote for the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment. Here is the reason why. In the words of Tom Nichols, the owner of the largest gun shop in the State of Nebraska--he sells more handguns and other kinds of guns than anybody in the State of Nebraska--80 percent of the people who come in to buy a gun in his shop are cleared in 24 hours. The instant check system gets them just like that. These are the law-abiding citizens. These people have absolutely nothing in their background at all that would indicate there is any kind of a problem. But, he said, the people of greatest concern aren't those 80 percent. The people of greatest concern are the ones who take a longer period of time, require a special agent to get into their background to find out what is going on. If it is only 24 hours, what is going to happen is, yes, the law- abiding citizens will be OK; you will clear those out with no trouble at all. But those aren't the people who are the problem. Those people are getting cleared out in the 24-hour instant check, just like that. It is the people who require a little bit more work who are the ones we want to deny the opportunity to own a gun. I urge colleagues, as they come down here, if you really want to try to change the law to increase public safety, my recommendation is to vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Vermont, but then also vote for the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from New Jersey and myself. Ask your own gun dealers why and who and what happens with that additional 48 hours. They will tell you. The answer is, that is when you get the people who are the biggest problem. That is when you create the most public safety with the Brady bill background checks. I understand that this issue has been highly charged and there has been a lot of heat and rhetoric and hard feelings on both sides which has occurred as a consequence of that. But if you are trying to write a law that will increase public safety, that will decrease the number of Americans who are either felons or dangerous or have something else in their background but own guns, I urge Senators to vote for both of these amendments, which we will have an opportunity to do, I guess, in about 10 minutes. Again, I thank the Senator from New Jersey and others who have taken the leadership on this. I thank, again, Tom Nichols from Guns Unlimited in Nebraska. You put yourself out a little bit in this kind of situation. He is basically saying we need to have a level regulatory playing field. You have 2,000 or 3,000 gun shows a year. The Senators from Oregon and Vermont will allow instant checks for those gun shows, but we need that other 48 hours in order to be able to level the playing field between licensed gun dealers and gun shows. That is all we are doing. There is no more money that they will be paying in, no more regulatory burden. It merely levels the playing field so people who buy a gun in a gun show and people who buy a gun from a licensed dealer will have to go through the same thing. If you want to make Americans safe, I urge you to vote for both of these amendments.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for accepting the mentoring amendment that I offered, and I want to thank my colleague Mr. Dorgan for cosponsoring this amendment. I believe that youth mentoring is an important piece of our effort to decrease violence among our young people. This amendment encourages us to take youth mentoring seriously. It asks states to develop criteria for assessing the quality and effectiveness of mentoring programs and to reward those programs that do a good job. It also asks the Departments of Justice and Education to disseminate information on best mentoring practices, so that mentors can receive guidance on how to make the best use of their time with students. Since the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, a few weeks ago, Congress and the nation have been grappling with the question ``How do we prevent such a terrible tragedy?'' The answer to this question is complex, and, as we know from our debate here on the floor of the Senate, there are many different points of view as to what more we should do to keep our kids healthy and safe. I believe that one of the things we must do is increase the amount of quality time our young people have with caring, responsible adults. Without a doubt, the most important adult in a child's life is that child's parent. But even the most committed, well-intentioned parents cannot be with their children 24 hours a day. And often young people, especially teenagers, feel uncomfortable talking to their parents about sensitive or troubling issues. That is why it is important that young people have someone in their lives they can turn to in troubling times. Now, some kids are fortunate enough to have a trusted aunt, uncle, or family friend in whom they can confide. But some are not so lucky. Fortunately there are caring adults who volunteer their time to become that trusted friend--we call them mentors. We cannot know for certain that having mentors would have stopped the two teenagers in Littleton from harming their classmates. But we know that the young men were troubled. And if we can increase the number of individuals who are close enough to a young person to detect problems when they arise, we increase our chances of keeping those problems from spiraling out of control. Mr. President, we know that mentoring works. In 1995 a Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of America Impact Study showed that at-risk young people with mentors were 46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs; 27% less likely to begin using alcohol; 53% less likely to skip school; 37% less likely to skip a class; and 33% less likely to hit someone than at-risk children without mentors. In a 1989 Louis Harris poll, 73% of students said their mentors helped raise their goals and expectations. And a Partners for Youth study completed in 1993 revealed that out of 200 non-violent juvenile offenders who participated in a mentoring relationship, nearly 80% avoided re-arrest. I believe in the power of mentoring, because I've seen it firsthand in my own state of Nebraska. In Nebraska, we have a fantastic program run by Tom and Nancy Osborne called TeamMates. TeamMates is a school- based program that pairs adult volunteers one-on-one with middle and high school students. The Osbornes created TeamMates quite simply because they saw an unmet need. They realized that there are a lot of bright and capable young people out there who receive too little support and encouragement. In order to reach their potential to become good citizens and productive members of their community, these young men and women just need a helping hand. Tom and Nancy started TeamMates in 1991, and the success they saw in that first year inspired them to continue. They started out with 25 matches, and of the students in those matches, 20 graduated from high school and 18 pursued postsecondary education. The response to TeamMates has been highly encouraging. Principals and administrators have commented on the positive attitude change they see in students in just the first year of their relationship with a mentor. And 99% of the mentors choose to continue their relationship with their students after the first year. Right now there are 475 TeamMate matches throughout Nebraska. And they hope to have a total of 900 a year from now. We have another terrific mentoring program in Omaha called All Our Kids, which began in 1989 at McMillan Junior High School. At present, nearly 80 mentors are providing guidance to at-risk junior and senior high school students. And All Our Kids enjoys a strong relationship with the Omaha Public Schools System. OPS staff work closely with All Our Kids staff to identify students who need the services provided by its long-term mentoring and scholarship program. With our help, TeamMates, All Our Kids, and other promising mentoring programs throughout the nation will be able to expand the horizons of more young people by providing them with caring adults to show them the way. I also want to thank the managers for accepting my Sense of the Senate urging the President of the United States to allow each Federal employee to take one hour a week to serve as a mentor to a young person in need. Recently, Jim Otto, Nebraska State Director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, called me and said, ``I read what you said about the importance of youth mentoring, and I want to let you know that I'm a mentor in the TeamMates mentoring program in Lincoln. I want you to know it's been a great experience.'' Jim said he was fortunate that his employer allowed him to take one hour a week of administrative leave to spend time with his student. But he also said that some of his colleagues in other Federal agencies and departments were not so fortunate. Many employees would like to become mentors, but they just can't take time away from work. Now, we have a lot of dedicated individuals throughout the nation who serve as mentors. Several members of my own staff participate in the Everybody Wins program in the D.C. Public Schools. And, as I mentioned earlier, we have great mentoring programs in Nebraska. But we need more adults to say, ``I want to make a difference.'' The purpose of this legislation is to enable more adults to take the time to contribute to the well-being of their communities. It's just one hour a week, but in a child's life it can make a world of difference. Mr. President, whether it's helping a student take an interest in schoolwork, helping build a young person's self-esteem, or helping a young man or woman communicate more effectively with parents, friends, and teachers, a mentor can be that invaluable safety net that keeps a child from falling into despair. Now, there are many steps we can take to try to prevent violent acts once an individual reaches that point of desperation, but it is better for all of us if we intervene before that point--and it is also less costly. With additional support for good mentoring programs we will be able to reach more young people before they become lost to substance abuse, isolation, or any other destructive behavior that leads them to commit acts of violence against themselves or others. In helping these programs continue their good work, we raise the hopes of more of our children. And when our children's hopes are high, we all benefit.

Mr. KERREY. I have 9 minutes left.

Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERREY. But the Senator said his fear with the regulation is that we are going to have black markets. All we do--and I urge colleagues, especially the public to listen--is we say to a gun show operator, like every other licensed dealer, a gun show promoter has to register with ATF and pay a small fee. We are not passing on the cost of the background check. Brady does not allow that. I voted against that. It does not allow us to pass on the cost of the background check. All it says to the gun show operator is you have to do the same thing a licensed gun dealer has to do. You have to register with ATF and pay a small fee. Secondly, the gun show vendor has to show proof of identification when they check in at the gun show to verify they are who they claim to be. And the third requirement, hardly a prohibitive burden, in my judgment, is they have to notify people at the show that there are going to be background checks. You can do that with a sign. Neither one of these three things is what I call a burdensome regulation, for gosh sakes. They are what licensed dealers have to do, exactly what licensed dealers have to do. Again, last week when the Craig-Hatch amendment was adopted, the headline in the Omaha World Herald was: ``Republicans Close Gun Show Loophole.'' Under this amendment, this is what you can do to get an exception. It is true gun shows will have to do background checks, except for people who have special licenses. Look who gets a special license: Somebody who is buying or selling firearms solely or primarily at gun shows. That is the first exception. Basically, I am saying, yes, if you are a gun show, you have to do a background check, you have to do everything a licensed dealer has to do unless you are a gun show. If you are a gun show, you do not have to do it. That is one of the exceptions provided in this law. Again, if you want to go home and say, yes, I voted to close the gun show loophole, right in this thing it says I can get a special license to operate a gun show without having to do background checks if I am buying or selling firearms solely or primarily through gun shows. It does not get the job done. We impose regulations on licensed gun dealers. I have consulted licensed gun dealers in Nebraska. I said earlier, I am a supporter of the second amendment. I believe the right to bear arms means something. I believe the right to bear arms does not give me an unlimited right to bear arms, just as the first amendment does not give me an unlimited right to speak. There are limitations on my right to bear arms. These are reasonable limitations to keep all the rest of us safe. The leading cause of death of teenagers in the United States of America is homicides and suicides. We are the only industrial Nation that has that. We are not talking about picking up guns. We are trying to put something together that, like Brady, will reduce the opportunity of felons and people who have other things in their background which might make them an unreliable owner to have access to guns. This is not an unreasonable regulation. This is exactly what licensed gun dealers have to do. The Craig-Hatch amendment simply does not get the job done because it allows somebody to say: I am going to get a special exemption because I am a gun show operator. Secondly, I do not know the history regarding the loophole having to do with pawnshops, but for gosh sakes, we do not want to allow somebody to basically go in to a pawnshop and say: Here is my 357 Magnum, and I would like to get a certificate. Maybe they stole it. A high percentage of people are concerned about pawnshops doing business, but we want that person to have to go through a background check when they pick up that gun. It has to be that a fairly significant percentage of those guns have been stolen and acquired in some way we suspect may put other law-abiding citizens at risk. It is not unreasonable when they come back to redeem their handgun that they have to go through a background check. That is not an unreasonable limitation of their second amendment right to bear arms. That is a reasonable limitation. We understand that in a civil society, we have to give up a little bit of freedom from time to time in order to have a civil society. We do that. I do not have an unlimited right in freedoms. I have responsibilities as well, Mr. President. This amendment corrects a deficiency in the Hatch-Craig amendment that is terribly important. It will make Americans safer. It will reduce the chances at gun shows that people who are dangerous who should not have guns will be able to buy them. It will reduce that chance. Is it going to solve all the problems that are associated with juvenile crime and violence in America? Absolutely not. But it is absolutely reasonable to say that if you are a gun show, we are going to regulate you when it comes to background checks the same way we do a licensed dealer, the same way that we regulate anybody who wants to set up a licensed operation: a license from ATF and they have to do background checks. Sometimes they have local ordinances that are even more severe. In Omaha, you have to go to both the police department and to the sheriff's office in order to eventually do a transaction when you are purchasing a handgun. It may have seemed unreasonable in the beginning, but it is working. It is making our country safer. I hope colleagues who are genuinely trying to close this loophole will consider that this amendment gets the job done; this amendment will make America safer. It is not an unreasonable change in our law. For those of us who believe the right to bear arms has meaning, it is a reasonable change. In fact, I think it is going to make it more likely that we will keep the laws that will allow law-abiding Americans to own guns and use those guns to hunt, to target practice, and all the other legal applications for which, obviously, guns are used. I hope this amendment is considered seriously by colleagues who want to close this loophole and they will support the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah said we are trying to make this amendment look like the Republican amendment. I may want to look like the Senator from Utah in many other ways, but we did not try to make this amendment resemble in two very key ways the amendment that was adopted last week. I appreciate very much the concern about the regulation. In fact, as I said, the Senator from New Jersey made a number of changes to reduce the regulatory requirements. All we have left are the same regulatory requirements that all licensed gun dealers have to go through. We will see about 3.5 million handguns sold this year through licensed dealers and 2 million in nonlicensed environments. What we are trying to do, for those of us who believe that background checks--there are some who do not. There are some who voted against the Brady bill and did not like the background checks. That is fine, but I think they have worked. They have reduced in America the number of felons who have handguns. They have reduced the number of people who are dangerous with guns from having handguns. It is generally accepted that the evidence shows Brady has worked and it has made America safer as a consequence. What we have, though, is a regulatory differential. All of us can understand that. If one group of people are regulated one way and another group of people are regulated another way, it can produce some significant distortions in people's behavior. Right now, it is easier to go to the 2,000 to 3,000 gun shows every year and buy a handgun or another gun than it is from a licensed dealer. Why? Because you do not have to go through a background check. You do not have to do the same things that you do through a licensed dealer. I do not know if the concern about the black market was raised when Brady was passed. Perhaps it was. We did not create a black market with Brady. We still have people who are either felons or who should not have handguns, who are mentally unstable, or have something in their background that makes them, in the judgment of law enforcement, dangerous to own a gun.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator says this would give the ATF the ability to levy a new tax. But under the modified proposal that we have, all we are doing is saying that a gun show operator--several thousand of them a year--will simply have to pay the same relatively small fee that all licensed gun dealers do. Will the Senator agree that this is no different from what any licensed gun dealer has to pay, that basically what we are trying to do with this amendment is to say that if you have a gun show where it is possible that guns will be sold, you need to be licensed like everybody else and you need to pay a relatively small fee? I ask the Senator that question. Second, would the Senator agree that we have substantially reduced the amount of regulations that gun show operators would have to comply with in this amendment, that we struck, I think, three or four of the most difficult regulations, leaving only the requirement to register like all licensed dealers have to do and pay this small fee? They have to prove the identity of vendors when they check in at a gun show. That is just to verify the vendor is who they claim to be. And they have to post a sign indicating NISC background checks will be required. Will the Senator agree that basically, first, there is a substantially reduced amount of regulations that we have in the first amendment, and, second, that all this tax the Senator has referenced, which is a fee, is the same thing that other licensed gun dealers would have to pay?

Mr. KERREY. Yes.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator didn't take too much time at all. It is within your right to do it. I do have a markup with the Finance Committee and I appreciate very much the Senator yielding to me so I can make a couple of points about this amendment. First of all, I do believe in the second amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms. I think it has meaning. In the past, I measured whether or not I will vote for changes in the law that restrict a citizen's right to own a gun that reduces their right by imposing waiting periods or increased licensing requirements by a simple test: Will this reduce the number of people who are having their rights violated by either being shot at, shot, or killed as a consequence of people who acquire guns illegally, using those guns to commit a crime? I voted for Brady. I voted for the so-called assault rifle ban, though it didn't really ban rifles; it banned some features. I feel confident when I vote for something that I think works. What we have here, and I think both sides are agreeing, is a significant loophole in the law. There are thousands of gun shows every year where not only can law-abiding citizens go, but as a consequence of not having to be licensed--if you go to a Guns Unlimited in Omaha, NE, you have to get not just background checks but you have to get permits from the city of Omaha and the county sheriff. It takes a while before you buy a gun. If you set up a gun show in Douglas County, no licensing requirements are necessary. You can buy any gun if you are a felon or mentally unstable, no background checks are required at all. Both sides are saying we recognize that loophole needs to be closed. I noted last week, indeed, when the amendment was offered as a motion by Senator Hatch and Senator Craig, the headline of the Omaha World Herald said ``Republicans Close Gun Show Loophole.'' What I am trying to say with this amendment is two things. One, some objections raised against the previous amendment talked about excessive amounts of regulation. I found that to be a credible argument. Senator Lautenberg was good enough to make significant changes in it, so all that is left now is for a gun show operator to do the same thing that a licensed dealer has to do, which is to register with ATF; they pay a small fee just as any licensed operator has to do; the vendor has to show proof of identification--that is, the person who is selling--that verifies the vendor is who they claim to be. And then basically a sign has to be posted notifying people, who are either vendors or there buying, that NICS background checks are going to be done. That is all that is required. It is a fairly simple imposition of regulations that are the same for anybody who goes to a licensed gun dealer. In addition, you have to comply with whatever the local law is, the State law, or Federal law. That is all we are attempting to do. I urge Senators who are considering whether or not to vote for this amendment to look at the language of the law as it is currently proposed in the Juvenile Justice Act, as modified, because the loophole is still there. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Utah can address this, or somebody else who is a proponent of this. It says that special licenses can be granted to people who are running gun shows. It does not say that all gun show dealers have to register, as all licensed gun dealers do. It says some gun show operators can be granted special licenses and then they will not have to do background checks, they will not have to determine whether or not a person who is walking in to buy a handgun is a felon, whether or not they are mentally unbalanced, whether or not they have previous crimes they have committed. None of this is going to be required if this gun show operator can get a special license. You say maybe there are some special cases where a special license is required. I urge Members to look at the language. The language says a special license can be granted to a person who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms by, No. 1, buying or selling firearms solely or primarily at gun shows. That is going to exempt everybody. Anybody who is out there who says I do not have a gun shop, I am not a licensed gun dealer, all I am doing is operating at gun shows, is going to be able to apply for a special license and be exempted. You tell me how that is going to reduce the opportunity for a felon-- again, somebody who has committed crimes in the past with guns--to go to an operator who is engaged in a business primarily operating at gun shows and not be able to buy a dangerous weapon. The answer is, they will still be able to buy. So if anybody believes we have closed this loophole as a consequence of the Juvenile Justice Act as it is currently amended, I urge you to look at the language. Anyone who is buying or selling firearms solely or primarily at gun shows can be given a special license and then will not have to do background checks. Second, for anybody who is buying or selling firearms as part of a gunsmith or firearm repair business or conduct of other activity, as in this subsection, that seems not necessarily unreasonable. You can, I suppose, craft this thing so special exemptions can be granted. But we do not grant special exemptions for somebody who is out there as a licensed gun dealer; they merely have to pay a small fee with the ATF and agree to do background checks. If you talk to the licensed gun dealers today--many of whom opposed those background checks to begin with--they say they now basically are comfortable with it; it is operating relatively well, and it gives them increased comfort when they sell a handgun, knowing they are selling it to somebody who is not a felon; either the local sheriff or local police department signed off on it and said that person who has made that purchase is somebody who is a law-abiding citizen, who is not a felon, who does not have anything in his background that would indicate the rest of the public is going to be at risk as a consequence of him owning a handgun. This amendment corrects precisely what many people objected to in original language, and that is, it reduces the amount of regulation. But it clearly says if you operate a gun show and you are selling guns, you are going to have to do what every licensed dealer has to do. You pay a fee to the ATF and you make certain you do background checks on anybody who is buying. That closes the loophole. But current language as described here in law does not do that. Current language will still allow somebody who is primarily involved or solely involved in operating gun shows--it will allow them to say we do not have to get a license, we do not have to notify ATF, we don't have to do background checks, we can just set up shop. You could even have a vendor at a gun show, under the proposal as this Juvenile Justice Act has been changed, a vendor who is also illegal--no background checks, no analysis required of the vendor as well. There are other problems that can be identified. I am troubled as well by the pawnshop exemption in the Juvenile Justice Act as originally proposed, as is proposed today as well, because I think that also unnecessarily puts the public at risk. That is what we are talking about here. All of us understand the Bill of Rights provides us with freedom but also understand there are limits. I do not have unlimited first amendment rights. If I libel or slander people, they can bring a case against me. I do not have an unlimited second amendment right. My second amendment right ends when I am a threat to somebody else. This is not about restricting law-abiding citizens; it is about trying to write the law so people who are intentionally committed to violate the law have a more difficult time acquiring a weapon that will enable them to do grave bodily harm to, if not to kill, another member of our society. So I hope those who would genuinely want to close this loophole, who are looking for a way to basically level the playing field for somebody who is out there selling guns through gun shows and licensed gun dealers in the local community, want to have the same rules applying to both. I hope my colleagues will consider what we will be doing if the Juvenile Justice Act, as modified, is enacted, and what we will be doing if the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and I is accepted. I hope this will be accepted. We have significant numbers of Americans who are saying we do want to reduce this loophole, this risk that we see to our lives--not just our lives but our children's lives as well. I think it is an altogether reasonable amendment. I was surprised initially there was much controversy over it. I regret there is controversy over it. I hope this amendment will be seen by those who support the right to bear arms as a reasonable way to make certain that all Americans, gun owners and non-gun-owners alike, not only have a right to own a gun but have a right to the safety and security that all of us want to have in our homes and in our neighborhoods. The Senator from Alabama is gone. I will, in his absence, thank the Senator from Utah for allowing me to speak so I can get back to the finance meeting.

Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Thirty seconds.

Mr. KERREY. I believe we need to be very careful not to increase, in an unnecessary fashion, that risk. And this amendment will reduce that risk. It will not increase takings claims against the Government. It will not increase litigation as a consequence of saying that we are not going to allow continued and new unitary thrift acquisition and new commercial interests to come in and purchase savings and loans. Mr. President, I appreciate the fine work the Senator from Texas has done and the Senator from Maryland has done. I hope we can get this legislation in a form that I can support, because I believe financial services modernization is something that has long been needed and is long overdue.