The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKES BIPARTISAN LAW” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S5702-S5703 on April 26, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKES BIPARTISAN LAW
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am quite disappointed and even puzzled today by the Supreme Court's decision in the United States versus Lopez case. Usually, the courts speak with one voice, but today the majority of the court spoke for several separate opinions.
By a slim 5 to 4 margin, the court struck down the bipartisan Gun-
Free School Zones Act, a law that prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.
In my judgment, this is a classic example of judicial activism, and it ignores the safety of our American children.
I will briefly say something about the facts that the court today ignored. Each day in our country more than 100,000 students bring guns into our schools. One-fifth of urban high school students have been threatened with firearms, and several hundred thousand schoolchildren are victims of violent crimes in or near their schools every year. Moreover, the problem of youth violence is rapidly escalating. In 1984, a total of 1,134 juveniles were arrested for murder; by 1993, that figure had more than doubled. According to the Justice Department, the vast majority
[[Page S5703]] of these murders were committed with firearms and many with handguns.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, together, tried to do something about this disturbing trend when we enacted the gun-free school zones legislation in 1990. Today, a slim majority of the court has shot Congress down, and in so doing, put America's children at greater risk.
Now, because we reenacted and perfected the Gun-Free School Act last year as part of the crime bill, the current law may still be constitutional. Indeed, we may yet be able to ensure the constitutionality of the law with a technical amendment, and I plan to introduce a bill to do that next week.
Broadly interpreted, however, the reasoning of the majority in this case could have far-reaching consequences that may undermine a variety of crucial Federal laws, like the Drug-Free School Zones Act on which the Gun-Free School Zones Act was based, or the bans on cop-killer bullets, or our Federal wetlands laws, and many of our civil rights statutes.
Mr. President, I agree with the strong dissent by Judge Souter, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer, who labeled this ruling today by the Supreme Court a step backward.
I again want to express my disappointment with today's decision.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
