Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are several aspects of U.S. job creation and retention on which many of us may disagree. I do not believe, however, that the need for an effective research credit is one of them. It will do more for workers, more for jobs, more for high technology, more for opportunities, and more for the economy than most anything else we could pass. In this jobs bill it seems very appropriate for us to add this particular amendment to it. This amendment has strong support from both sides of the aisle. It has the unified support of the whole business community. It is the right thing to do for U.S. workers, for the U.S. economy, and for our children and our grandchildren. This amendment will open a door for small businesses, where most of the jobs are created anyway, to create more jobs, more opportunities, more good products, more high technology, more ways of keeping the United States at the forefront, economically, in this world than almost anything else we could do. This jobs bill, which itself is an excellent bill that will do a lot for jobs, will be much better for having this amendment added to it. I hope my colleagues will all vote for it. It is a worthwhile thing to do. It is something that every one of us ought to vote for. I thank those who have cosponsored this with me, those who have amended it with their excellent suggestions and the members of the Senate Finance Committee who have been champions of this for many years. I believe over the long run this type of amendment is going to pay off in great dividends. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2004, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on future Navy and Marine Corps capabilities and requirements, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the Committees Views and Estimate Letter on the President's FY/05 Budget Request for Indian Programs, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the Status of the Completion of the National Museum of the American Indian. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on the constitution

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Activism vs. Democracy: What are the National Implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge Decision and the Judicial Invalidation of Traditional Marriage Laws?,'' on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 10 a.m., in SD226. Panel I: Reverend Richard Richardson, Assistant Pastor, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, Director of Political Affairs, The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, President/ CEO, Children's Services of Roxbury, Boston, MA; Pastor Daniel de Leon, Sr., Alianza de Ministerios Evangelicos Nacionales (AMEN), Pastor, Templo Calvario, General Presbyter, Assemblies of God, Santa Ana, CA; the Hon. Jon Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE; and Mrs. Maggie Gallagher, President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, New York, NY.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the role of defense science and technology in the global war on terrorism and in preparing for emerging threats in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 3, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1420, a bill to establish terms and conditions for use of certain Federal land by outfitters and to facilitate public opportunities for the recreational use and enjoyment of such land.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on impact on abortion on women in SR-253.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I respect the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as he knows. I will certainly look at this amendment. But throughout this day I have seen others on the other side continually talk about jobs and loss of jobs like we are not doing anything about it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This very bill, FSC/ETI, is a very important bill. We call it the Jumpstart Our Business Strength on Jobs bill because it will help us to increase the number of jobs in this country by huge dimensions. It also is a smart thing to do. It also saves us $4 billion in assessed costs with the E.U. in international trade, if we get this done. That is very important. Some of the comments I have heard today, not those of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--in fact, I exclude his comments--some of the comments I have heard today would have you believe the only way you are going to get jobs is more of the same: More Government, more Government support, more and more controls, more and more approaches towards unionizing America. I am one of the few Members of this body who ever held a union journeyman's card. I worked 10 years in the building construction trade unions and earned my journeyman lather's card. The laths trade was one of the most interesting trades. In the early days it was wood lathing, little partitions of woods that you put on partitions and ceilings that you would plaster over. In my day it was metal lath, which was a much more high-tech approach towards putting up partitions and ceilings and elliptical arches and Gothic arches, and it was a very skilled trade and I was fortunate that I was able to do that and I am proud I was able to do that. Today, the lathing trade is no longer in existence because we priced ourselves out of the marketplace. Today, all of the lathers who used to work in this very skilled trade had to transition into the carpenters' union because their trade no longer could pay for itself. As a matter of fact, you don't see many buildings plastered today. The reason you don't, it is just too expensive. So drywall has become the norm. I am not criticizing anybody. What I am saying is, we can price ourselves out of the marketplace. I can remember time after time, my fellow union lathers would say: Hey, kid, slow down. We are not going to have any work if you keep working so fast. My father was one of the best lathers in the world and taught me the trade. He said: Look, you give an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar and you work as hard as you can. It was anathema to me to slow down so we could have more work. That is what happened. They slowed down and the work dissipated and, of course, the trade no longer exists. I think we are worse off because we don't have lath and plaster in a lot of our buildings today. I am not blaming my fellow union members, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that there are gives and takes in the business world. The fact that some businesses do their business offshore is not necessarily bad because in many cases we get even more jobs onshore. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes it is bad. But by and large, business in this country has always worked because we believe in the free market system. We believe in competition. We believe in high productivity. My feeling is that this country cannot be beat in productivity. If we really work hard and we continue to do the best we can, we are always going to be able to compete. But where we cannot compete because of low wages and government subsidization and violations of international trade laws, then, my gosh, let's not quit. Let's go and find new jobs. This administration inherited some terrifically bad times. The whole last year of the Clinton administration was headed into recession, and everybody knows it. Anybody who says otherwise is not telling the truth. Everybody knows that. So this President inherited that. I don't particularly blame the Clinton administration. We do have cycles. But I have to say I think they could have done some things to have prevented it. But that is probably true of everything. He then inherited this recession, and on top of that comes September 11, which created magnificent problems for all of us. It was very costly and expensive and put pressure on the budget. It cost us in so many ways, even from a productivity and jobs standpoint. But economic growth for the third quarter of last year was up over 8 percent. In the fourth quarter, it was 4.1 percent. I know years here when we would have killed for 4.1 percent. Frankly, I believe the first quarter of this year is going to be all right too, even though normally it is a slow quarter. I think all we have to do is do our best to work together as Democrats and Republicans without all the screaming and shouting like one side has all the answers and the other side doesn't, which I have heard a lot of today, and put aside the politics and do what is best for our country. Unfortunately, some just can't seem to do that. I believe the President is doing a great job. I believe his various Cabinet-level officials are doing great work. In fact, I have never seen better in my 28 years in the Senate. I believe it is time to be fair, decent, and honorable.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the comments from the distinguished majority leader of last Friday with respect to the asbestos legislation. This is an absolutely vital issue for this country's civil justice system and, most importantly, to our economy. If you want to have jobs, then let us get this asbestos reform bill through and we will get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs back, and perhaps the 70 large companies which have gone into bankruptcy will be able to resurrect themselves and be able to employ more people. We now have the opportunity with S. 1125, the Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, to correct what has become a gross injustice against asbestos victims and the defendants who are relentlessly hauled into court despite having never manufactured or ever sold a shred of asbestos fiber. It has been a long road for this legislation so far. But I concur with Senator Frist, our distinguished majority leader, that we are finally in a position where we can enact this legislation. We went through a grueling markup of this bill last year, and since then have engaged in focused discussions over remaining differences under the stewardship of my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and Judge Becker of the third circuit court of appeals. The stakeholders and Members involved in these discussions all agree that this process has proved to be quite successful, not only in clarifying areas of disagreement but in proposing workable solutions to these areas. As a result, there now remains a mere handful of issues left to consider. But given the timeframe set forth by the leader last Friday, I believe more needs to be done to help bridge the gap on the remaining issues. Therefore, I propose that we get the primary stakeholders and interested Members together for a 2-day-long negotiating session sometime in mid- to late-March with this type of focus on the last handful of these issues. I believe we can resolve the remaining differences in this bill. There is nothing we can't solve, if we will work together. This issue is too important, and we are too close not to give this one last effort through an extended 2-day-long meeting. I know Judge Becker and the stakeholders and the key Republican Members have all expressed their desire to participate in this 2-day meeting. I hope my Democratic colleagues who have been working on this issue will join us in the final push toward reaching consensus. Let me give some background for those who have not been as steeped in this legislation over the past year or so. For more than 20 years, compensation to legitimate victims of asbestos exposure has been unacceptably diminished and delayed. It has become quite evident to the committee that tens of thousands of true asbestos victims are faced with agonizing pain and suffering with uncertain prospects of a meaningful recovery in our existing tort system. These victims are left with little to nothing because precious resources are being diverted to unimpaired plaintiffs and a handful of creative trial lawyers who are looking to make a quick buck. I am a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association, having been a trial lawyer in my former non-Senate life, since we Mormons believe in a premortal existence. I have to say that my fellow ATLA members are embarrassed by this small cadre of personal injury lawyers who are thinking only of themselves and the huge fees they make, with the approximately 50 to 60 percent of the moneys that go to attorneys. They are embarrassed by it. They won't say that because they don't want to cut up their fellow personal injury lawyers. But that is what is going on here. In up to 90 percent of the cases that have been filed, the person has never had a sick day in his life with regard to asbestos. In most of those cases, they have been sent to doctors who will find injury no matter what. It borders on fraud and in some cases it is fraudulent. It is wrecking the country. Seventy major companies are now in bankruptcy, and there are over 8,400 or more, going up to 15,000, that possibly will be thrown into bankruptcy that never had anything to do with asbestos or made anybody ill from asbestos. At the same time, scores of companies with almost no connection to the problem have had to file for bankruptcy, as I have said, and hundreds of others live under the constant threat of insolvency from this litigation. What this translates into is lost jobs, depleted pensions, and weaker financial markets. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to do something about jobs, let us get serious about asbestos reform. Let us get serious about doing what is right for those who are truly ill and who won't get very much at all. Those who were employed by 70 companies are getting 5 cents on the dollar. We take care of them with this trust fund. We have heard the statistics but they bear repeating. The RAND Institute for Civil Justice tells us, to date, 70 companies have been forced into bankruptcy--at least 3 with operations in my home State of Utah. The number of claims continues to rise as does the number of companies pulled into the web of this abusive litigation, often with little, if any, culpability. More than 600,000 people have filed claims, and more than 8,400 companies have been named as defendants in asbestos litigation. This has become such a gravy train for some abusive personal injury lawyers that over 2,400 additional companies were named in the last year alone. RAND, this great research institution, also notes in its bipartisan research that about ``two-thirds of the claims are now filed by the unimpaired, while in the past they were filed only by the manifestly ill.'' That is a low number. It is really up to 90 percent. But let us take their number. Two-thirds of them are filed by people who really are not impaired. Former Attorney General Griffin Bell, amongst many others, has denounced this type of ``jackpot justice.'' To address this national problem, I introduced a bipartisan bill with my friends, Senators Ben Nelson, Mike DeWine, Zell Miller, George Voinovich, George Allen, Saxby Chambliss, and Chuck Hagel. This bill creates a trust fund which provides expedited no-fault compensation to victims while reducing the wasteful transaction costs. Attorney's fees and transactions costs have been as high as 60 percent of the amounts recovered. After weeks of marking up the bill, we passed this legislation favorably from the committee with bipartisan support last July. No one can accuse us of being unwilling to compromise. When I look at where our bill started--and it was a good start--and where it is now, our willingness to compromise is abundantly clear. Let me show you this chart. In total, we have made 53 changes to this bill to accommodate concerns raised by our friends on the other side, the Democrats. Let me review a brief history of these changes. In May, we circulated a bipartisan draft measure, and my staff met then with Democratic staff to listen to their concerns. As a result of these discussions, we incorporated many of their requests even before introduction. We then embarked on several weeks of markups that saw dozens of Democratic-initiated amendments adopted into this legislation. I didn't agree with all of these amendments, but it can't be said that there hasn't been strong participation with Democrats on this bill. By the way, I met for a couple of hours with the head of the AFL-CIO to explain this bill to him. I know deep in my soul that he knows I am doing everything in my power to do what is right. I know he knows that we have done what is right. I respect and appreciate the fact that he sat down with me and talked with me about it. This chart behind me summarizes some of the major changes we made at the behest of the Democrats. Raising the level of mandatory contributions to well over $100 billion; 111 different changes to increase the value of awards to victims; 22 changes to make it easier for asbestos victims to be eligible for compensation; a historic, bipartisan agreement on eligibility criteria where the unions and everyone came together; reimbursement for medical monitoring--now they will pay for medical monitoring of people who are not sick and especially those who are; five additional provisions to guarantee payment of mandatory contributions; relief for asbestos victims in Libby, MT, where asbestos was mined; a Federal ban on asbestos and ``bad actor'' protections. Look at this chart. ``To build bipartisan support, more than 53 changes to S. 1125 have already been made at the urging of the Democrats. These occurred prior to the bill's introduction, during negotiations between introduction and committee consideration, and throughout the four committee markups devoted to the legislation.'' I ask unanimous consent all of these changes be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. That chart is amazing. I don't agree with all those changes, but we made them to accommodate our friends on the other side. Just look at all these changes. No one can tell us we are not doing everything we can to make this bill a consensus bill and to be fair to everybody. We know there are a lot of people who will be compensated under this bill who have never suffered a bit from asbestos, but we have given the benefit of the doubt. Many of them are union workers who have smoked all their lives and got cancer from smoking but have had something to do with asbestos at one time or another in their career but probably have shown no feasible asbestos. Literally thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands, will be compensated. There comes a point where you have to say, Let's do what is right here. Let's not just keep loading this bill up so you can beat your breast and claim you get more money, more blood out of these companies. Moreover, even though our original claim values would have on average provided more money to legitimate claimants, we increased the values even more and we removed most collateral source offsets to ensure more of the award goes directly to the claimant. That means even though they received moneys, we removed those as offsets. These changes listed on the chart behind me do not even include other changes we have offered since the bill was reported out of committee. Through the leadership of the majority leader, we got contributors to add an additional $6 billion in overall funding along with significant increases in claims values in many categories. We started at $94 billion in mandatory funding because this amount would give more money to claimants on average than they received in the current tort system. Nonetheless, through the markup in the Frist financing agreement, we increased the fund to have the capacity to pay out $114 billion to claimants. It is not just money, either. The Frist financing deal adds more flexible borrowing authority as yet another safeguard for solvency. Senator Frist has my cooperation and support in doing this. Our willingness to resolve the Democratic concerns speaks for itself by virtue of where this bill stands today. I again thank Senators Frist and Specter for their willingness to help resolve some of the difficult issues on this legislation and, of course, the cosponsors as well. Let me talk about the final issues. Even though we made all of these changes that show up here, I understand some want to make further changes, including streamlining the claims process even more. I have said I am willing to look at such proposals, but the time has come and the time is past to wrap up this process. It passed out of the committee last summer and we need to stop talking and do something. With all of this whining about jobs that all of us want to get in this country, this bill would do more to create jobs and solidify our economy than any other bill we can pass this year. This bill makes sense except for how costly it is, but even then we are willing to do that. This is why we need to continue working for the next several weeks on the issues and sit down in a 2-day meeting sometime in the last half of March to see if we can finally get agreement on all of the issues. I thank Senator Specter and Judge Becker for their valuable assistance. I was not really happy because we had gone through so much and I had commitments from so many people if we got to $108 billion, this bill would go and they would support it. I got it to $108 billion--and I think they thought we could not do it--and they said we have to have more and more and more. We are giving them more, even. I also appreciate the willingness of Senator Specter and Judge Becker to help finally resolve these issues in a 2-day session. My friends, Senators Leahy, Dodd, and Daschle, have been graciously willing to sit down with us at a staff level to narrow the differences and I am confident they will be willing to join in this 2-day meeting as well. We are willing to accommodate schedules to get full participation in this meeting within a reasonable fashion. We simply cannot delay any longer. We need to ensure the truly sick get paid and paid in a timely manner. We need to provide stability to our economy by stemming the rampant litigation that resulted in a tidal wave of bankruptcies and stop endangering jobs and pensions through the current broken system. This crisis reaches far and wide and it hurts everyone. What is happening with these bad acting personal injury lawyers who have been handling some of these cases, they forum-shop the cases into jurisdictions where juries go wild and judges support them and judges are in the pocket of the plaintiffs' lawyers. In one case, if I recall it correctly, five people, not one of whom experienced a sick day up to that time, got $125 million, while thousands and thousands of very sick people get nothing. That is wrong. For anybody to keep supporting that process the way some have done is wrong. That is why I am here on the floor to challenge all of our colleagues to work together in good faith, put our differences aside and let's get this bill done in the best interests of our country and the best interests of jobs. If that is not done, I would not listen to one ``mouthing'' word from people on jobs because they are playing politics rather than doing the art of the doable, doing what needs to be done, what must be done in the interests of the sick people, the truly sick people and, I might add, many others who did not get their sickness from asbestos, but we give them the benefit of the doubt. This bill really will work even though I have to admit it is very tough on the companies that have to come up with this $114 billion. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am compelled to speak out against continuing this assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein. An assault weapon is a military firearm which can be fired either automatically or semiautomatically with the flip of a switch. In other words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun, which is a gun already regulated by Federal law. The firearms covered by the so-called ``assault weapons'' laws are semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Some of these firearms are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically indistinguishable from any true traditional-looking deer rifle. According to the FBI, in 2001, nearly five times as many individuals were murdered at the hands of criminals wielding knives than were murdered by criminals using rifles. I might add, only a fraction of those rifles were the semiautomatic rifles that were banned by the so- called assault weapons ban. What I think is most interesting and telling about this statistic is that the proportion is nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago; that is, according to the FBI, in 1991, 3 years before the assault weapons ban passed, nearly five times as many murders were committed with knives than rifles--exactly the same proportion as exists today. The so-called assault weapons ban has succeeded in only one thing: law-abiding men and women, precisely because they abide by the law, were stripped of some of their second amendment rights. We cannot make the same mistake this body made 10 years ago. The number of murders committed with different weapons has decreased in all areas, proportionally, over the last 10 years. The suggestion that the assault weapons ban is responsible for this decrease is as preposterous as it is misleading. There is no more evidence that the ban on semiautomatic weapons has had a positive impact on crime than there is that the setting Sun is responsible for street lights turning on. The fact is, just as we feared 10 years ago, the only impact the ban on semiautomatic weapons has had has been on law-abiding citizens. I would like, therefore, to take a few minutes about how we ought to address gun violence. Instead of banning certain firearms for merely political reasons, we need to continue aggressively prosecuting criminals. Rather than focusing on crafting and enacting more laws that erode law-abiding citizens' constitutionally protected rights, we ought to channel our efforts towards enforcing our current laws and punishing those who choose to abuse those rights and commit crimes with guns. For example, President Bush has made a commitment to reduce gun crime by getting armed criminals off the streets through his initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. In contrast to the 10-year assault weapons ban and its ineffectiveness in combating gun violence is the overwhelming success of Project Safe Neighborhoods. Project Safe Neighborhoods, announced by the President and the Attorney General in 2001, is a comprehensive strategy that brings together Federal, State, and local agencies to reduce violent crime in our communities. I might add that we have had a 68-percent reduction in violent crime since that came into being. And I might also add that the only way to keep this under control is to get tough on those who abuse the right to have guns and who abuse the use of guns. The President is on the right track. We do not need this particular amendment. I hope my colleagues will not accept it. This ought to be our approach. Not simply saying all guns of a certain appearance are banned. We must continue to vigorously pursue those who abuse the right to own a firearm--not stripping away law- abiding individuals' rights to own and possess firearms. Especially when, other than their appearance, those firearms are no different than thousands of other firearms that are considered legitimate. In fact, in May of last year, I held a hearing for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of Project Safe Neighborhoods. The results are in, and they are impressive. The number of Federal firearms prosecutions has increased significantly every year under Project Safe Neighborhoods. Specifically, prosecutions have increased 68 percent in the past 3 years. In 2003, the Department of Justice filed over 10,500 Federal firearms cases--the highest number ever recorded by the Department. Federal offenders are being sentenced to significant jail time. In 2003, approximately 72 percent of offenders were sentenced to prison terms greater than 3 years. The per capita number of violent crimes involving firearms has dropped 14 percent since the start of the Bush administration. This has translated into an average of over 32,000 fewer gun crimes annually in each of the first 2 years of the Bush administration. There were nearly 130,000 fewer victims of gun crime in 2001-2002 than in 1999-2000. The President has been and Congress should be making America's neighborhoods safer by vigorously enforcing gun laws and preventing and deterring gun crime. Arbitrarily taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does not assist the President in making the neighborhoods of America safer. Inthe course of the debate over gun liability my colleague, Senator Durbin, spoke of Korean-American victims in Illinois. Let me tell you about Korean-American victims in California. Many of the guns which current assault weapons bans are targeting-- including the Federal ban enacted in 1994--are the very guns with which the Korean-American merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. For those of you who may not recall the Los Angeles Riots, let me tell you about this tragedy. On April 29, 1992, African Americans, upset over the verdict in the Rodney King case, took to the streets of Korea Town in downtown Los Angeles. Although these innocent Korean-Americans had nothing to do with the police brutality inflicted upon Rodney King, their businesses were singled out. Calls for help came in to 911 by the hundreds. but citizens were informed that no assistance was available. Order had broken down. People were on their own. As a result of one night of violence, 55 people died, over 2,300 were injured and one billion dollars of property damage was sustained according to the Christian Science Monitor. Gunfire killed 35 people. Six died in arson fires. Attackers used sticks or boards to kill two people. Two other were stabbed to death. Six died in car accidents, two in hit-and-runs, and one person was strangled. The violence crossed racial and ethnic lines. Seventy-five percent of the businesses destroyed belonged to Korean Americans. Those Korean-American merchants who possessed assault weapons and used them to defend themselves, would likely have a different story about gun control laws and how they help victims. The Korean-American merchants would agree that when one is facing mob violence and the police are unable to respond, one may need a gun that shoots more than just six bullets or has a menacing appearance. A ban on large capacity semiautomatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family rather than deter crime. While most American spend little time thinking of what the police can do to protect them during times of domestic tranquility, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Citizens, like the police, have a right, and some would say a duty, to defend themselves and their families against deadly threats. The assault weapons ban is a measure entirely devoid of rational thought. It is not based upon compelling factual data or civil necessity, but of political strategy and the machinations of over- reactive, quick-fix ideologues. This amendment addresses neither the problem nor the solution, when it comes to gun crime. And because the amendment serves only the political agenda of the few and not the convictions and rights of the many, I strongly oppose the amendment. Amendment No. 2636

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another issue I would like to talk about is the amendment sponsored by my colleague, Senator McCain, the so-called gun show loophole. Based on some of the arguments I hear made by Senator McCain and his cosponsors, it is apparent there are some misunderstandings about what gun shows are, how they operate, and existing applicable laws. Gun shows are large events that are open to the public. These events attract a broad range of people. They include collectors, hunters, target shooters, police officers, and those who serve in the Armed Forces. Gun shows are an opportunity for Americans--fathers and mothers and their sons and daughters--to pass along a family tradition. Exhibitors at these gun shows include gun dealers who are all federally licensed, as well as gun collectors, hunting guides, target shooting clubs, and vendors of books, clothing, hunting accessories, and so on. What Federal laws currently apply to gun shows? Contrary to popular opinion, there are no special exemptions for gun shows. Anyone who engages in the business of selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of where he or she does business. More specifically, there is simply no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. In fact, dealing in guns without a license is a Federal felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a substantial fine. Congress authorized licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows in 1986 under the Firearms Owner Protection Act. So what happens when these dealers sell guns at gun shows? Have these dealers applied for and received Federal firearms licenses from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives? The answer is a simple yes. Dealers are required by Federal law to conduct a criminal background check. They must conduct a check through the national instant check system at gun shows just as they would have had to do in any other location. So if we adopt this amendment, who will it affect? The answer is not surprisingly, but unfortunately ignored by the proponents of this amendment. The answer is it would affect law-abiding citizens who are out to hurt no one. It would drive out and shut down the gun collectors who buy and trade some of their guns at gun shows. They represent a fraction of the exhibitors at gun shows. Remember, gun collectors are not gun dealers and may not engage in the business of dealing firearms without a firearms license. I would like to touch on an issue that many Utahns and I find particularly troublesome. If we adopt this amendment, it will effectively create gun owner registration. I want to make sure my colleagues understand how this legislation, if it became law, would work. Under the amendment, special firearms event operators would have to verify the identity of all participating vendors and have those vendors sign a ledger saying they were there selling firearms, whether or not any of the vendors actually sold a firearm. This requirement is a modest improvement of the original bill, which, as introduced, would have required vendors to submit to the Attorney General the names of all vendors slated to participate in the Gun Show. Regardless of the slight change, it is clear what the sponsors of this amendment intend. That is, to track and register law abiding citizens who merely want to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. So suppose a private, law-abiding citizen enters a gun show hoping to sale or trade a firearm, but that person does not make a deal and leaves with his own firearm. This person, this private law-abiding citizen, would be on file and in a ledger forever as a special firearms event vendor, copies of the ledgers to be used for any future purpose. This amendment also purports to provide for instant background checks. Now, anyone who knows anything about the national instant criminal check system knows that they do not turn around such inquiries in 24 hours. In fact, currently, the national instant criminal check system has 3 days to turn around a request for a background check. The amendment before us provides that the wait may be reduced to 24 hours if a State applies for the privilege of improving its records. With a 3-business-day period still allowed to check out-of-State records, a few large States will drag down the whole scheme for all transfers across the Nation. Again, what is the practical effect? Gun collectors who occasionally attend gun shows for a day or two on a weekend will be shut down because they will not be able to have the national instant criminal check system run the required check on a prospective buyer and make such a transaction in that day. There are two more important points that I think many of the Members in this body may have overlooked. First, in November of 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on imprisoned felons and where they obtained their firearms. Fewer than 1 percent obtained the guns they used to commit their crimes at gun shows. Of that 1 percent, only a fraction obtained weapons through collectors. What does this tell us? The idea that shutting down collectors at gun shows will affect crime in any appreciable way is dramatically overstated, if not preposterous. Criminals are getting their guns on the street or from the residential burglaries, but not from heavily police-attended gun shows. Second, and I want my colleagues to hear this: Law enforcement and Federal prosecutors continue to use gun shows to weed out corrupt gun dealers. In fact, Federal prosecutors stress to me that passing this amendment would serve only to drive those few who would unlawfully deal in firearms without a license into the black market, into the back alleyways, and into the hidden areas of our communities, making it nearly impossible to locate and prosecute such criminals. So not only will this amendment fail to address the true nature of the problem, but it will punish law-abiding collectors who choose to publicly trade their firearms. I submit that adopting this politically driven, knee-jerk amendment, which only injects partisanship into a bill that otherwise enjoys broad bipartisan support, will have two effects: One, it will shut down lawful gun collectors who attend and trade guns at gun shows; and two, if it has any effect on crime, it will affect it negatively by driving the few dealers who are unlawful into the black market where it is exorbitantly more difficult for them to be located and prosecuted. I urge my colleagues on other side of the aisle to re-examine their analysis, put politics aside, and reject this amendment. It will serve no purpose in pursuing our common goal of fighting crime, but instead will only hurt innocent law-abiding citizens. Let us not be distracted from the issue at hand. We have legislation before us that enjoys broad bipartisan support and that deserves our attention. That should be the focus of our efforts, not passage of this unwise amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Frist-Craig amendment relating to armor piercing ammunition. The Frist-Craig amendment restates existing law which prohibits the manufacture, import, or sale of armor piercing ammunition except for use by the United States Government or for export. Additionally, the Frist-Craig amendment requires the Department of Justice to study and report to Congress whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible. The Department would include in its study the standards which Senator Kennedy seeks in his proposed amendment. Ideally, this report will confirm or put to rest the issue of whether the amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy would have the effect of banning standard hunting information. This is a sensible approach to an issue which has so many legitimate hunters and other gun owners concerned. Finally, and importantly, the Frist-Craig amendment does something about Senator Kennedy's concerns in a way that his amendment does not. Specifically, the Frist-Craig amendment imposes serious penalties on those who use and carry armor piercing ammunition during and in relation to crimes of violence and drug trafficking crimes. The Frist-Craig amendment sends a clear message that those criminals who use this type of ammunition in their crimes that they will face significant punishment. Additionally, if the criminals murder someone with armor piercing ammunition in the course of a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence, they will face the full range of punishment, including the death penalty. The Frist-Craig amendment would therefore punish those who use armor piercing ammunition to carry out illegal activities while permitting those who intend to legitimately use ammunition with common and conventional hunting or sporting rifles to do so. It is through the Frist-Craig amendment that we would preserve what is the classic first deer rifle given to millions of Americans; that is, the 30-30 Winchester deer rifle. Finally, it is important to note that the Fraternal Order of Police, representing over 311,000 police officers nationwide, supports the Frist-Craig amendment. A difficulty many have with Senator Kennedy's amendment is the definition of body armor, which is directed at the minimum standard for protection of law enforcement officers. According to the Department of Justice, the minimum standard is level 1 body armor which is designed to resist bullets fired from various low caliber handguns, such as .22s or .380s. Therefore, under this amendment common handgun ammunition for other handguns, including .44 calibers and 9 mm, would be banned. Additionally, neither level 1 nor level 2 body armor is designed to prevent penetration by rifles. Therefore, to ban all ammunition that may penetrate level 1 body armor, or level 2 body armor for that matter, would in effect ban all rifle ammunition. I am troubled by this issue because I remember the draft AFT report issued in 1997 by ATF's career personnel that concluded that there was no need for new legislation. Unfortunately, those in that administration's political positions whose agenda was to push gun control legislation reversed those findings.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask my colleagues on the floor just to think this through. I have been watching this debate about the threat of Iraq, frankly, since the early 1990s. I have been privileged to serve in this body since 1977, which means I have been here long enough to see the evolving trends in terrorism, from the Iranian revolution to the perversion of the Islamic faith and advent of fundamentalism. I also have been here through all the stages of relations with Iraq since the rise of Saddam Hussein. I recall the debate prior to the first gulf war. While certainly not absolutely partisan, that debate in 1990 was the last time we had a very partisan debate on foreign policy. Through the 1990s, while I had many disputes with the Clinton administration over various aspects of foreign policy, I seemed to recall that partisanship on the question of Iraq had diminished. In fact, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in this body unanimously and in the House overwhelmingly and was signed into law by President Clinton. I think my colleagues would have to agree with this. I would like to ask my colleagues if they agree with the following assessment: Since the fall of 2002, the debate over Iraq policy has become more and more partisan and more and more bitter. While the authorization to use force was passed by a large majority--I believe it was 77 to 23--and with the support of many of my Democratic colleagues, including some not present today, the debate since then has been troubling to me. You would think that Congress could maintain our proper role of oversight without descending into partisan attacks. You would think that with our military in the midst of a historic mission and over 500 American families grieving because their loved ones paid the ultimate sacrifice, that legitimate criticism could be expressed without partisan rancor or misleading rhetoric. You would think so. One of the most troubling aspects of the criticism of our President and his policy was the suggestion, deceivingly made, that the threat of Saddam Hussein was not imminent. I believe these criticisms beginning last year deliberately tried to confuse the American public. The threat was not imminent, the critics said, implying the response to go to war was not required. Yet I have reviewed most of the President's rhetoric, and I have concluded that he made numerous honest statements that declared that after the historic attacks of September 11, we would not be defining our response by outdated measures of imminence. I went back and read a key quote from the President's State of the Union Address in 2003 in which he declared to us, the American people, and to the world: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions politely, putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. That is what he said, and it was right then, and it is right today. So will my colleagues recall this extremely clear statement? Do they think his words were casually stated? Give me a break. I have given a lot of thought to the concept of imminence since September 11, and as we debated our response to Iraq, I recognized that the definition of ``imminence'' is necessary to support a doctrine of preemption. I wonder what our various Senators' views about this are since the definition of ``imminence'' is different in the 21st century than it was in the 19th or the 20th centuries. During the debate over authorization of the use of force last year, I made the following points: Osama bin Laden launched an attack that changed the way America sees the world. We had to recognize that the concept of imminence was not an abstract idea as we contemplated preemptive use of force. Preemption is not a new concept in international law, despite what many of the President's critics suggest. It is as old as Grotius, the founder of modern international law. Contrary to critics' misinformed assertions, the U.S. has never foresworn the use of preemption, not since the U.N. charter and not under either Democratic or Republican administrations. Preemption has always been conditioned on the idea of imminent threat. In the prenuclear era, we could see conventional armies amassing on a border and base imminence on that measure. But in the nuclear era, the idea of imminence grew quite a bit murkier. Was it the fueling of an enemy ICBM? Was it the glare on the rocket as it left the launch pad? Was it the warheads' return through the atmosphere? Because we raised these questions, by the way, was the reason the U.S. rejected a ``no first use'' policy during the era of strategic competition with the Soviet Union. Was that the reason we did that? You bet your life. Imminence becomes even murkier in an era of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. When did the threat of al-Qaida become imminent? I know when it became manifest. Not, by the way, on September 11. Osama bin Laden had struck many times before then. On September 11, the threat became catastrophic. It was well beyond manifest. It was well beyond imminent. Today, most people agree the threat of Bin Laden should have been considered imminent well back into the 1990s. I first started speaking of this threat in 1996, but I now believe this threat could have been considered imminent even before that. Do my colleagues agree we had to reconsider the definition of ``imminence'' after September 11, that the threat of terrorism forces us to redefine threats to our national security, that it would have been irresponsible for any administration entrusted with national security to avoid doing so? Does anybody disagree with that? Would my colleagues allow me just a few more questions which I would like to ask everybody in this body, please? I wonder if my colleagues would agree with this assessment about the threat that Iraq poses. I had to make, for my own conscience and to present to my constituents, my own assessment of the threat posed by Iraq. The threats Saddam Hussein posed to his own people were clear. Free Iraqis today will be undertaking the grim task of exhuming mass graves for a long time. Saddam's threat to his neighbors and our friends in the gulf and Middle East are also well established. But all of us had to determine what threat was posed to the United States. I feared a nexus between weapons of mass destruction and a terrorism- sponsoring state, and we feared they had weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. confirmed they had had weapons of mass destruction. They used weapons of mass destruction against their own people and threatened the use of them against others. They used them against others, as well, in the Iranian war. On weapons of mass destruction, we know that we have not discovered any weapons of mass destruction so far. This debate has been joined on a number of levels. I fully support the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in his determined efforts to learn about the failures of our intelligence, if there were, in fact, failures. We still have not even looked at the vast majority of sites in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction may still lie. I know that every intelligence community professional agrees with our need to learn from many errors because all of us know the value of accurate intelligence, while all of us recognize the limits to perfectibility. On another level, both in the Intelligence Committee and in the public arena, the debate has become more partisan, acrimonious and, once again, deceptive. Will my colleagues agree with me that the cost of making intelligence oversight partisan is not worth the devaluation of a tool that we need more than at any other time in our history? I would like to know if my colleagues would agree with the following conclusion about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We faced a weapons of mass destruction gap. This gap was the difference between the chemical and biological stockpiles we had confirmed existed until the late 1990s and the lack of evidence regarding their status or destruction in 2002--their status, their destruction, or their removal someplace else. The gap was significant. No other Western government or intelligence government could explain it, nor could the United States verify that the gap had been closed by the cooperation of the Iraqi regime in proving the destruction of these weapons. This was a requirement, by the way, under international law, made to the international community, a requirement that was the result of the cessation of hostilities at the end of the first gulf war; a requirement that unmet left that war unresolved, unconcluded, and therefore without a promise of peace. The attempts at denial and deception by the Iraqi regime were blatant. The refusal to cooperate with the international community was obstinate. The potential threat posed by a regime violently hostile to the United States was grave. I hope my colleagues will agree that it would have been irresponsible for any administration entrusted with the national security to avoid reaching similar conclusions. There was the threat of terrorism. For well over a decade, Iraq was on our list of state sponsors of terrorism. Every Member in this body had ample opportunities to review the evidence supporting this claim-- this verified knowledge, by the way. To my knowledge, no Member on either side of the aisle questioned the President's determination, or this determination. Now, of course, we have not proven a link to September 11, and ultimately there will likely not be a causal link. Perhaps Saddam was directly involved. Perhaps we will learn more. Association is not causation, as every logic professor would say. Caution in leaping to conclusions is in order. Associating with terrorist groups, as we know Saddam Hussein has done and had done, training them, giving them moral and financial support, is different than directing them. Nevertheless, his links to terrorism had been evident for a long time. The President has made it clear, since his first speech before the Congress days after September 11, that associating with terrorist groups would no longer be responded to with apathy. The previous administration did so, there is no question about that, and America's security was gravely compromised. Do my colleagues remember the President's speech to the Congress after September 11, 2001? Do they recall, as I do, the public's overwhelming support for what the President said that day? Certainly the evidence of Al-Zurqawi whose documents were captured and released a few weeks ago, as well as the reports in the press suggesting links with the Ansar-al-Islam indicated a troubling link between Iraq and al-Qaida. I am waiting for some of the administration's critics to suggest that these two terrorist elements were caused by our intervention in Afghanistan and that had we supported the status quo there we would not be facing the terrorists of the jihadists and Ansar-al-Islam. That would have been another very specious analysis. It is true that Al-Zarqawi and Ansar became more active as a result of our intervention in Afghanistan, when we deposed the Taliban and al- Qaida and fled from that country to hide in Pakistan or to get safe passage from Iran to travel to Iraq. In my estimation, if Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11, his regime certainly became more dangerous to us as a result of our attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. I hope my colleagues can imagine that this President or any President would not have had to respond similarly to the way President Bush responded to the Taliban's protection of al-Qaida after September 11, 2001. That is, of course, unless a President had judged the threat of al-Qaida imminent before that fateful day. Finally, I would like my colleagues to allow me a question or two on the responses we have heard from David Kay's testimonies. The response to the Kay testimonies has also been very troubling to me because the testimonies of an honest and substantive man have been subject to partisan rancor over the President's difficult decision to go to war. Listening to some commentators, one would think Kay's honest assessment that weapons of mass destruction will not be found, an assessment that I believe may still be premature, could be interpreted into a challenge to the sincerity of the administration's estimate of the Iraqi threat. As I have said, I believe we need to investigate any flaws in our intelligence that David Kay or any other serious professional exposes. Yet this is what David Kay told us. In an interview earlier this month, he said: I certainly believe that Iraq was a gathering threat. In fact, in many ways, it will probably turn out that Saddam and that regime were more dangerous than we anticipated because, in fact, it was falling apart into unbelievable depravity and corruption. Where is that quote among all of our liberal commentators in this country today? Where is that quote? That was one of the most important quotes he made. The week before, Kay told the public, in responding to a question of whether the decision to go to war was prudent: I think it was absolutely prudent. He said: I think it was absolutely prudent. In fact, I think at the end of the inspection process we will paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war. It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability and weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it. The fact is, it took guts for the President to do what he did. He was right, and history will prove him to be right. When I hear these testimonies of David Kay, I become concerned of yet another intelligence failure: We did not adequately assess the political degradation of the Saddam Hussein regime, the political degradation of a regime that killed 300,000-plus of its own citizens, men, women, and children, and buried them in mass graves, and helped to kill a million others in its war with Iran. We did not adequately assess the political depravity and degradation of Saddam Hussein's regime. Iraq had become a gangster state. It was, according to David Kay, and all the reports we are now getting from free Iraq, more dangerous than we thought. Yet some criticize the President's decision? Give me a break. They ought to be criticized. The critics know these facts as well as I do, and ignoring them is a terrible thing. I would just like to ask my colleagues whether the assessment by David Kay should not support the President's brave decision to address the threat of the Hussein regime by implementing a policy of regime change--a policy that had been nearly unanimously supported in our Government for 4 years? Was Iraq a grave and gathering threat, as the President said? I ask my colleagues, especially those who have been so critical of the President, would it have been responsible for any administration entrusted with the national security to avoid reaching similar conclusions? I think Senator Kerry was right when he said this: I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior, which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, back in 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in the development of weapons of mass destruction. That was said in the Congressional Record. Why the difference today? Let's go back to my friend, Senator Kerry, the Senator from Massachusetts, again. Back in 1990 he said: Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker State, Kuwait. . . . The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population. My gosh, that was said in the Congressional Record on October 2, 1990. On November 9, 1990, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said this: [Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded towards his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. All I can say is why did he say that then, and why, as a candidate, is he saying the things he is saying today? The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said: [W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. That is in the Congressional Record on November 9, 1997. I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts deserves credit for those statements. He was warning America during the Clinton years of how terrible the Saddam Hussein regime really was. He deserves credit for that. On November 9, 1997, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was right again. He said: It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully develop and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire populations of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true. He was warning the nation and he deserves credit for having done so then. On February 23, 1998, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said this: There are a set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East. I am hooked. Incredible. I am proud of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for having said that during the Clinton years. I just wish he would acknowledge that he said that during the Bush years. There are other distinguished Senators who knew of this threat and who made statements on what we should do back during the Clinton years, and even during the Bush years. It bothers me that this President has been so viciously attacked by people who know the facts and who knew them back during the Clinton years and spoke out about them during the Clinton years, who are so willing to demean this President during the years of George W. Bush as President. It never ceases to amaze me how out of tune we become when Presidential years come along. I think it happens to both sides. I really believe that. I believe there are partisans on both sides. But I have never seen it like it is today. It used to be that we supported whoever was President in foreign matters. We stand together. I guess this partisanship really began during the Vietnam war. But it has reached a pitch today that is unseemly.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Well, let me go first.

Mr. HATCH. No.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Campbell, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Sessions, and Craig, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's see if my colleague from Connecticut can agree to this. I intend to take a few minutes to define the bill. I have promised Senator DeWine, I think he only has about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. I will say my statement in a very few minutes. Then I ask unanimous consent that we go to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and then----

Mr. HATCH. I will be short. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut be recognized pursuant to Senator Kennedy's granting of time and immediately thereafter the Senator from Ohio be recognized.