June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7919

(8) a significant portion of the reallocated

spectrum will not yet be assigned to nongovernmental users before that authority expires;

(9) the transfer of Federal governmental

users from certain valuable radio frequencies

to other reserved frequencies could be expedited if Federal governmental users are permitted to accept reimbursement for

reallocation costs from non-governmental

users; and

(10) extension of the authority to use auctions and non-governmental reimbursement

of Federal governmental users relocation

costs would allow the market to determine

the most efficient use of the available spectrum.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF AUCTION

AUTHORITY.

Section 309(j) of the Communications Act

of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) is amended—

(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting

in lieu thereof the following:

(‘‘1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—If mutually exclusive applications or requests are accepted

for any initial license or construction permit

which will involve a use of the electromagnetic spectrum, then the Commission

shall grant such license or permit to a qualified applicant through a system of competitive bidding that meets the requirements of

this subsection. The competitive bidding authority granted by this subsection shall not

apply to licenses or construction permits issued by the Commission for public safety

radio services or for licenses or construction

permits for new terrestrial digital television

services assigned by the Commission to existing terrestrial broadcast licensees to replace their current television licenses.’’;

(2) by striking paragraph (2) and renumbering paragraphs (3) through (13) as (2) through

(12), respectively; and

(3) by striking ‘‘1998’’ in paragraph (10), as

renumbered, and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘2002’’.

(3) by striking ‘1998’’ in paragraph (10), as

renumbered, and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘2002’’.

SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT OF FEDERAL RELOCATION COSTS.

Section 113 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act

(47 U.S.C. 923) is amended by adding at the

end the following new subsections:

‘‘(f) RELOCATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

STATIONS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to expedite the

efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum and notwithstanding section 3302(b) of

title 31, United States Code, any Federal entity which operates a Federal Government

station may accept reimbursement from any

person for the costs incurred by such Federal

entity for any modification, replacement, or

reissuance of equipment, facilities, operating

manuals, regulations, or other expenses incurred by that entity in relocating the operations of its Federal Government station or

stations from one or more radio spectrum

frequencies to any other frequency or frequencies. Any such reimbursement shall be

deposited in the account of such Federal entity in the Treasury of the United States.

Funds deposited according to this section

shall be available, without appropriation or

fiscal year limitation, only for the operations of the Federal entity for which such

funds were deposited under this section.

‘‘(2) PROCESS FOR RELOCATION.—Any person

seeking to relocate a Federal Government

station that has been assigned a frequently

within a band allocated for mixed Federal

and non-Federal use may submit a petition

for such relocation to NTIA. The NTIA shall

limit the Federal Government station’s operating license to secondary status when the

following requirements are met—

‘‘(A) the person seeking relocation of the

Federal Government station has guaranteed

reimbursement through money or in-kind

payment of all relocation costs incurred by

the Federal entity, including all engineering,

equipment, site acquisition and construction, and regulatory fee costs;

‘‘(B) the person seeking relocation completes all activities necessary for implementing the relocation, including construction of

replacement facilities (if necessary and appropriate) and identifying and obtaining on

the Federal entity’s behalf new frequencies

for use by the relocated Federal Government

station (where such station is not relocating

to spectrum reserved exclusively for Federal

use); and

‘‘(C) any necessary replacement facilities,

equipment modifications, or other changes

have been implemented and tested to ensure

that the Federal Government station is able

to successfully accomplish its purposes.

‘‘(3) RIGHT TO RECLAIM.—If within one year

after the relocation the Federal Government

station demonstrates to the Commission

that the new facilities or spectrum are not

comparable to the facilities or spectrum

from which the Federal Government station

was relocated, the person seeking such relocation must take reasonable steps to remedy

any defects or reimburse the Federal entity

for the costs of returning the Federal Government station to the spectrum from which

such station was relocated.

‘‘(g) FEDERAL ACTION TO EXPEDITE SPECTRUM TRANSFER.—Any Federal Government

station which operates on electromagnetic

spectrum that has been identified for

reallocation for mixed Federal and non-Federal use in the Spectrum Reallocation Final

Report shall, to the maximum extent practicable through the use of the authority

granted under subsection (f) and any other

applicable provision of law, take action to

relocate its spectrum use to other frequencies that are reserved for Federal use or

to consolidate its spectrum use with other

Federal Government stations in a manner

that maximizes the spectrum available for

non-Federal use. Notwithstanding the timetable contained in the Spectrum

Reallocation Final Report, the President

shall seek to implement the reallocation of

the 1710 to 1755 megahertz frequency band by

January 1, 2000. Subsection (c)(4) of this section shall not apply to the extent that a nonFederal user seeks to relocate or relocates a

Federal power agency under subsection (f).

‘‘(h) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

‘‘(1) FEDERAL ENTITY.—The term ‘Federal

entity’ means any Department, agency, or

other element of the Federal government

that utilizes radio frequency spectrum in the

conduct of its authorized activities, including a Federal power agency.

‘‘(2) SPECTRUM REALLOCATION FINAL REPORT.—The term ‘Spectrum Reallocation

Final Report’ means the report submitted by

the Secretary to the President and Congress

in compliance with the requirements of subsection (a).’’.

SEC. 5. REALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM.

The Secretary of Commerce shall, within 9

months after the date of enactment of this

Act, prepare and submit to the President and

the Congress a report and timetable recommending the reallocation of the three frequency bands (225–400 megahertz, 3625–3650

megahertz, and 5850–5925 megahertz) that

were discussed but not recommended for

reallocation in the Spectrum Reallocation

Final Report. The Secretary shall consult

with the Federal Communications Commission and other Federal agencies in the preparation of the report, and shall provide notice

and an opportunity for public comment before submitting the report and timetable required by this section.

By Mrs. MURRAY:

S. 889. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in

the coastwise trade for the vessel Wolf

Gang II, and for other purposes; to the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation.

JONES ACT WAIVER FOR ‘‘WOLF GANG II’’

∑ Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that grants a Jones

Act waiver to the vessel Wolf Gang II.

This vessel is owned by Robert L. Wolf,

a Washington State resident who, after

30 years of service, retired in 1992 as a

colonel in the U.S. Army.

After his retirement, Wolf decided to

operate a charter boat business on

Puget Sound and bought Wolf Gang II,

a 1985 Bayliner 4518 motoryacht. Although Wolf can document the boat

was built in the United States, he cannot verify all of the boat’s previous

owners were U.S. citizens. As a result,

Wolf’s boat fails to meet all of the requirements in the Merchant Marine

Act, 1920, and he is unable to gain certification for coastwise trade.

I understand how frustrating this situation is for Mr. Wolf. He simply wants

to run a charter boat business in the

beautiful waters of Puget Sound, and

he has waited 3 years for an exemption

from the unintended consequences of

the Jones Act. My bill addresses this

complication and waives the Jones Act

requirements so that Mr. Wolf can

begin operating his charter business

this year. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation, and I expect to

see Barnacle Bob’s Cruises operating

soon.∑

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
S7920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

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 GunFree 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;
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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.

By Mrs. BOXER:

S. 891. A bill to require the Secretary

of the Army to convey certain real

property at Fort Ord, CA, to the city of

Seaside, CA, in order to foster the economic development of the city, which

has been adversely impacted by the

closure of Fort Ord; to the Committee

on Armed Services.

THE FORT ORD CLOSURE IMPACT ACT OF 1995

∑ Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduce important legislation to convey

surplus real property at the former

Fort Ord Army reservation to the city

of Seaside, CA. The sale of this property, which includes two golf courses

and surrounding property, is in accordance with the reuse plan prepared by

the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. This

legislation enjoys strong community

support. An identical bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman SAM FARR.

This legislation would help implement the 1993 recommendation of the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission. In the Commission’s 1993

report to the President, it made specific recommendations for the disposal

of Army property. These recommendations balanced the need for property

reuse with the Army’s legitimate need

to support the military personnel remaining on the Monterey Peninsula.

Specifically, the Commission directed the Department to dispose of all

property, including the golf courses,

not required to support the Presidio of

Monterey and the Naval Postgraduate

School. Accordingly, in 1993, the Acting Secretary of the Army decided to

sell the two Fort Ord golf courses to

the city of Seaside, CA.

Unfortunately, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act does not permit the Commission to consider the

nonappropriated fund revenue needs

which are supported by the golf course

revenues. This legislation addresses

this problem by allowing funds received by the Army from the sale of

golf courses to be deposited into the

Army’s morale, welfare, and recreation

account.

This legislation conveys approximately 477 acres, which consist of the

two Fort Ord golf courses, Black Horse

and Bayonet, and neighboring the surplus housing facilities. This property

has been screened through the Pryor

process established in the fiscal year

1994 Defense Authorization Act.

Importantly, this legislation requires

the city of Seaside to pay fair market

value for the property. I want to repeat

that point: this is not a giveaway program; the city of Seaside is required to

pay full market value. The proceeds

from the sale of the golf course will be

deposited in the Department of the

Army’s morale, welfare, and recreation

fund, and the proceeds from the housing sale will be deposited in the BRAC

account.

This legislation is another important

step in implementing the highly successful Fort Ord Reuse Plan. By enacting this legislation, the Congress will

help implement the BRAC Commission’s 1993 recommendations and simultaneously foster economic development

in the city of Seaside.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill

be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as

follows:

S. 891

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

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

(a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary

of the Army shall convey to the City of Seaside, California (in this section referred to as

the ‘‘City’’), all right, title, and interest of

the United States in and to a parcel of real

property (including improvements thereon)

consisting of approximately 477 acres located

in Monterey County, California, and comprising a portion of the former Fort Ord

Military Complex. The real property to be

conveyed to the City includes the two Fort

Ord Golf Courses, Black Horse and Bayonet,

and the Hayes Housing Facilities.

(b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for

the conveyance of the real property and improvements under subsection (a), the City

shall pay to the United States an amount

equal to the fair market value of the property to be conveyed, as determined by the

Secretary under such terms and conditions

as are determined to be fair and equitable to

both parties.

(c) USE AND DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.—(1)

From the funds paid by the City under subsection (b), the Secretary shall deposit in the