```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7919-S7921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Simon, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 890. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
gun free schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                 the gun-free school zones act of 1995

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, 
Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to 
introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense 
measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is 
needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement 
officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind 
you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds.
  Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill 
passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference 
where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That 
conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary 
Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and 
Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a 
[[Page S7920]] measure that was supported by all of us. And we should 
continue to support it.
  But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the 
original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus 
Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the 
Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the 
Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should 
alter the support this bill had in 1990.
  The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun 
within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with 
carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 
does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that 
the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in 
or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
  That is the only change to the legislative language of the original 
bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors 
while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act.
  The goal of this bill is simple: to heed the Supreme Court's decision 
regarding Federal power and yet to continue the fight against school 
violence. The Lopez decision cannot be used as an excuse for 
complacency.
  Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national 
epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the 
Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun 
in a 30-day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the 
National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns 
to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children 
when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?
  My home State, Wisconsin, is not immune to this wave of violence. 
According to Gerald Mourning, the former director of school safety for 
Milwaukee, ``[K]ids who did their fighting with their fists, and 
perhaps knives, are now settling their arguments with guns.'' In the 
1993-94 school year half of the students expelled from the Milwaukee 
Public Schools were thrown out for bringing a gun to school. In Dane 
County, WI, the number of juvenile weapons offenses tripled--from 75 in 
1989 to 220 in 1993.
  The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a simple, straightforward, 
effective and construction approach to this problem. In the Lopez 
decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded 
Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns 
found in school zones to interstate commerce. Much as I disagree with 
the 5 to 4 decision and strongly agree with the dissenters--Justices 
Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg--our new legislation will clearly 
pass muster under the majority's Lopez test. By requiring that the 
prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school ``moved in or affected 
interstate commerce,'' the act is a clear exercise of Congress' 
unquestioned power to regulate interstate activities. In fact, the 
Lopez decision itself suggested that requiring an explicit connection 
between the gun and interstate commerce in each prosecution would 
assure the constitutionality of the act.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that the guns brought to schools are 
part of a interstate problem. After all, almost every gun is made with 
raw material from one State, assembled in a second State, and 
transported to the school yards of yet another State. One 14-year-old 
in a Madison, WI, gang told the Wisconsin State Journal that the older 
leaders of his gang brought carloads of guns from Chicago to Madison to 
pass out to the younger gang members to take to school. In short, this 
act regulates a national, interstate problem. Numerous Supreme Court 
cases have upheld similar regulations.
  When the act was first passed, less than a dozen States had laws 
dealing with guns on school grounds. Now, more than 40 have such 
legislation. Our original Federal law served as an example and a spur 
to these State laws, and all of us in Congress should be proud of that. 
Their presence, however, does not eradicate the need for a Federal law.
  In light of these State laws, a few of my colleagues have asked me 
why we need a Federal statute. The answer is simple. Some States still 
do not have State Gun-Free School Zones Acts; others simply have laws 
that supplement the Federal statute; still more have laws that are 
weaker than the Federal law. Alabama, for example, only prohibits 
bringing a gun to a public school with the intent to cause bodily harm. 
That means you can bring a gun to school, frighten and disrupt 
everyone, but still get off because you did not intend to cause injury. 
And in Alabama you can bring a gun to private school without any 
worries. That is unacceptable. With a Federal law, we can fill in these 
loopholes. And where there are not State laws, we can fill in the even 
larger gaps. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors 
the flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or 
Federal statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher.
  Mr. President, Congress cannot ignore the epidemic of school 
violence. The epidemic is undermining our educational system and 
threatens to cripple our Nation's competitiveness. It is turning our 
schoolyards into sanctuaries for armed criminals and drug gangs. We 
have repeatedly recognized that our Nation's classrooms deserve special 
protection and attention from the Federal Government. Gun-Free school 
zones are not a panacea, to be sure, but they are an important step 
toward fighting gun violence and keeping our teachers and children 
safe.
  Five years ago we all agreed unanimously on this bill. It was 
sensible then, and it is sensible now.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Gun-Free School Zones Act 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 890

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gun-Free School Zones Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

       Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--
       ``(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, 
     is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
       ``(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the 
     interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
       ``(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate 
     commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and 
     around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both 
     the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and 
     the Judiciary Committee of the Senate;
       ``(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, 
     its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from 
     which they are made have considerably moved in interstate 
     commerce;
       ``(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, 
     ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to 
     or through certain parts of the country due to concern about 
     violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to 
     send their children to school for the same reason;
       ``(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has 
     resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our 
     country;
       ``(G) this decline in the quality of education has an 
     adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign 
     commerce of the United States;
       ``(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost 
     impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves; even 
     States, localities, and school systems that have made strong 
     efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find 
     their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or 
     inability of other States or localities to take strong 
     measures; and
       ``(I) Congress has power, under the interstate commerce 
     clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact 
     measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's 
     schools by enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly 
     to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a 
     school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of 
     a firearm--
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed 
     to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or 
     a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the 
     State or political subdivision requires that, before an 
     individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement 
     authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that 
     the individual is qualified under law to receive the 
     license; [[Page S7921]] 
       ``(iii) which is--
       ``(I) not loaded; and
       ``(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack 
     which is on a motor vehicle;
       ``(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a 
     school in the school zone;
       ``(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in the school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual;
       ``(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity; or
       ``(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual 
     while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining 
     access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the 
     entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall 
     be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless 
     disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt 
     to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     person knows is a school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the discharge of 
     a firearm--
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the 
     school zone, by an individual who is participating in the 
     program;
       ``(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in a school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual; or
       ``(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     preempting or preventing a State or local government from 
     enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as 
     provided in this subsection.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1995.
  This bill makes it a criminal offense to knowingly bring a gun or 
fire a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The penalty for violating the 
law would be up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $5,000.
  Mr. President, I believe that this bill is critical to protect the 
sanctity of our schools and the safety of our students.
  In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 12 students 
carried a gun to school within a 30-day period.
  Each day, an estimated 135,000 pack a gun with their books on their 
way to school.
  At a time when guns are becoming more and more prevalent on 
neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our 
playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to 
thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for 
their safety.
  In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free Schools Act with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of you know, a sharply divided 
Supreme Court recently invalidated that bill, saying that it exceeded 
congressional power.
  I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an 
amicus brief supporting its validity. But that is not the issue before 
us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children.
  The 1995 act ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free Schools 
Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each prosecution 
that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. That provision 
will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will ensure our power 
to keep America's schools safe.
  Mr. President, this bill has the support of the law enforcement and 
education communities.
  It has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the 
American Association of School Administrators, the National School 
Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School 
Principals, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  Certainly this bill is not a panacea, but it is a worthwhile attempt 
to keep our children away from the dangers of guns and violence.
  Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns 
don't kill; people do. But the gun statistics I've seen belie their 
contentions.
  Just consider these numbers.
  In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 
in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,220 
in the United States.
  The problem, Mr. President, isn't that we have more people. It's that 
we have more guns.
  We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that's overtaking our 
streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this worthy bill and to help protect 
our children and our teachers from the dangers of violence.
                                 ______
```