Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. What I'm saying, and I know the Senator from Virginia agrees, is that public education is no less important than economic development. And, when it comes to pushing the desperately underfunded school district to a position where it must purchase its facility, while some undefined economic development function gets a free conveyance, I can only conclude that the President has his priorities badly reversed, despite his rhetoric on the importance of education. At a time when we all seem to agree that we should do everything we can to help our state and local education agencies, we ought to be eliminating the requirement that local school districts jump through hoops just to be able to use surplus property--surplus because the community has already been hit by an economically devastating base closing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when Congress enacted the BRAC legislation, it left little doubt that the local community was intended to be the prime beneficiary of surplused facilities. Agencies were designed and created to determine the best use of the facilities deemed surplus by BRAC. In many cases, it has been determined that local school districts are the best recipient for use of these facilities. Unfortunately, local school districts and other public education entities today face a barrier in acquiring the surplused facility. This barrier is a highly punitive fee established by the Department of Education that can actually discourage local education entities from acquiring surplus defense facilities. ED has determined that certain non-instructional uses of these facilities, such as the vaguely defined ``research'' disqualify the district for a 100 percent exemption from the costs of acquiring the surplus facility. Similarly, ED has determined that certain other uses of these facilities, such as storage, even if directly related to instruction, warrants payment of a fee. For example, if a school district wants to use 70% of a facility for instructional purposes and 30% for storage of teaching related supplies, this district could be charged upwards of $300,000. Additionally, Mr. President, I find it somewhat ironic that, when the President's own education agenda calls for another federal program and more federal funding to provide school construction funds, the Clinton administration's Department of Education has concocted this schedule of fees to charge local school districts who wish to use surplus military property. I know that in my state of Utah, we have a great need for additional facilities. For example, of Utah's 461,000 students, 22,255 of them--or nearly 5% take classes in portable classrooms. That is unacceptable and the arbitrary requirements that the Department of Education has set for districts to acquire disposed defense facilities are onerous and should be corrected. I believe every public education entity ought to be eligible for a 100% exception from the payment of costs to acquire the facility when the surplus defense facility is used for instruction or other educational purposes. I understand that the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee does not have jurisdiction over the Education Department. He does, however, have jurisdiction over the underlying statute that the Department of Education has a role in carrying out.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleagues Senators Baucus and Mack to introduce the International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act of 1999. This bill will provide much-needed tax relief from complex and inconsistent tax laws that burden our American-owned companies attempting to complete in the world marketplace. Our foreign tax code is in desperate need of reform and simplification. The rules in this arena are way too complex and, often, their results are perverse. Mr. President, the American economy has experienced significant growth and prosperity. That success, however, is becoming more and more intertwined with the success of our business in the global marketplace. This has become even more obvious during the recent financial distress in Asia and Latin America. Yet, most people still do not realize the important contributions to our economy from U.S. companies with global operations. We have seen the share of U.S. corporate profits attributed to foreign operations rise from 7.5 percent in the 1960's to 17.7 percent in the 1990's. As technology blurs traditional boundaries, and as competition continues to increase from previously lesser-developed nations, it is imperative that American-owned businesses be able to compete effectively. It seems to me that any rule, regulation, requirement, or tax that we can alleviate to enhance competitiveness will inure to the benefit of American companies, their employees, and shareholders. There are many barriers that the U.S. economy must overcome in order to remain competitive that Congress cannot hurdle by itself. For example, we have international trade negotiators working hard to remove the barriers to foreign markets that discourage and hamper U.S. trade. It is ironic, therefore, that one of the largest trade barriers is imposed by our own tax code on American companies operating abroad. Make no mistake: the complexities and inconsistencies in this section of the Tax Code have an appreciable adverse effect on our domestic economy. The failure to deal with the barriers in our own backyard will serve only to drive more American companies to other countries with simple, more favorable tax treatment. We just saw this occur with the merger of Daimler Benz and Chrysler. The new corporation will be headquartered in Germany due to the complex international laws of the United States. The business world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Tax laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid changes in the world technology and economy. Too many of the international provisions in the Internal Revenue Code have not been substantially debated and revised in over a decade. Since that time, existing international markets have changed significantly, and we have seen new markets created. The U.S. Tax Code needs to adapt to the changing times as well. Our current confusing and archaic tax code is woefully out of step with commercial realities as we approach the 21st century. U.S. businesses frequently find themselves at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors due to the high taxes and stiff regulations they often face. A U.S. company selling products abroad is often charged a higher tax rate by our own government, than a foreign company is. For example, when Kodak sells film in the U.K. or Germany, they pay higher taxes than their foreign competitor Fuji does for those same sales. If we close American companies out of the international arena due to complex and burdensome tax rules on exports and foreign production, then we are denying them the ability to compete. Dooming them, and ourselves, to anemic economic growth and all its adverse subsidiary effects. The bill we are introducing today is not a comprehensive solution, neither is it a set of bold new initiatives. Instead, this bill contains a set of important intermediate steps which will take us a long way toward simplifying the rules and making some sense of the international tax regime. The bill contains provisions to simplify and update the tax treatment of controlled foreign corporations, fix some of the rules relating to the foreign tax credit, and make other changes to international tax law. Some of these changes are in areas that are in dire need of repair, and others are changes that take into consideration the changes we have seen in international business practices and environments during the last decade. One example of the need for updating our laws is the financial services industry. This industry has seen rapid technological and global changes that have transformed the very nature of the way these corporations do business both here and abroad. This bill contains several provisions to help adapt the foreign tax regime to keep up with these changes. In the debate about the globalization of our economy, we absolutely cannot forget the taxation of foreign companies with U.S. operations and subsidiaries. These companies are an important part of our growing economy. They employ 4.9 million American workers. In my home state of Utah, employees at U.S. subsidiaries constitute 3.6 percent of the work force. We must ensure that U.S. tax law is written and fairly enforced for all companies in the United States. This bill is not the end of the international tax debate. If we were to pass every provision it contains, we would still not have a simple Tax Code. We would need to make more reforms yet. We cannot limit this debate to only the intermediate changes such as those in this bill. We must not lose sight of the long term. I intend to urge broader debate about other areas in need of reform such as interest allocation, issues raised by the European Union, and subpart F itself. I believe that we must address these concerns in the next five years if we are to put U.S. corporations and the U.S. economy in a position to maintain economic position in the global economy of tomorrow. This bill is important to the future of every American citizen. Without these changes, American businesses will see their ability to compete diminished, and the United States will have an uphill battle to remain the preeminent economic force in a changing world. This modest, but important package of international tax reforms will help to keep our businesses and our economy competitive and a driving force in the world economic picture. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Semiconductor Investment Act of 1999. I am joined by Senators Baucus, Feinstein, Kyl, Robb, and Bingamin. This bill is designed to help the American semiconductor industry compete globally by shortening the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment from 5 years to 3. The U.S. semiconductor industry employs more than 275,000 Americans, sells over $67 billion of products annually, and currently controls 55 percent of the $122 billion world market. Its products form the foundation of practically every electronic device used today. Growth in this industry translates directly into new employment opportunities for American workers and to economic growth for the nation as a whole. The American semiconductor industry is a success story because it has invested heavily in the most productive, cutting-edge technology available, and currently spends 14% of its revenues on research and development and 19% on capital investment. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our semiconductor industry is threatened. While the equipment used to manufacture semiconductors has a useful life of only about 3 years, current tax depreciation rules require that cost of the equipment be written off over a full 5 years. The Semiconductor Investment Act would correct this flaw, Mr. President, by allowing equipment used in the manufacture of semiconductors to be depreciated over a more appropriate 3-year period. Given the massive level of investment in the semiconductor industry, accurate depreciation is critical to industry success. The key reason for this 3-year depreciation period is that the equipment used to make semiconductors grows technologically obsolete more quickly than other manufacturing equipment. Research indicates that semiconductor manufacturing equipment almost completely loses its ability to produce sellable products after less than 3 years. Today's 5-year period simply doesn't reflect reality. A quicker write-off period would help semiconductor manufacturers finance the large investment in equipment they need for the next generation of products. The National Advisory Committee on Semiconductors reinforced this conclusion. Congress founded the committee in 1988, and it consisted of Presidential appointees from both the public and private sectors. In 1992, the committee recommended a 3-year schedule would increase the industry's annual capital investment rate by a full 11 percent. By comparison, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea employ much more generous depreciation schedules for similar equipment, and all three nations provide stiff competition for America's semiconductor manufacturers. For example, under Japanese law, a company can depreciate up to 88 percent of its semiconductor equipment cost in the first year, while United States law permits a mere 20-percent depreciation over the same period. When multinational semiconductor firms are deciding where to invest, a depreciation gap this large can be decisive. This legislation will help ensure that America's semiconductor industry retains its hard-earned preeminence, a preeminence that yields abundant opportunities for high-wage, high-skill employment. Mr. President, my home State of Utah, provides an outstanding example of the industry's job-creating capacity. Thousands of Utahns earn their living in the State's flourishing semiconductor industry. Firms such as Micron Technology, National Semiconductor, Intel, and Varian have reinforced Utah's strong position in high-technology industries. With the fair tax treatment this bill brings, all Utahns can look forward to a more secure and prosperous future. Mr. President, the Semiconductor Investment Act of 1999 will help level the playing field between U.S. and foreign semiconductor manufacturers, and provides fair tax treatment to an industry that is one of the Nation's greatest success stories of recent years. I hope that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, once again we have a BRAC authorization measure before us. And once again the same deficiencies that led to the far-reaching political distortion of the prior, so-called ``independent'' BRAC commissions, are ignored. I voted against the first BRAC authorization back in February 1989. At the time, I was one of only eight senators opposing the measure because, I said, it could not avoid political tampering. I was hoping to have been proven wrong. Unfortunately, I was not. The proposal of my distinguished colleagues, Senators McCain and Levin, is well-intended. There is no question that a properly run BRAC outcome could lead to funds freed up for force modernization, military pay increases, and many other badly needed defense needs, not the least of which is readiness. But it's not the motivation of my colleagues that I worry about. Rather, I still question whether this process can be completely objective. Whoever occupies the White House is also likely to be misguided by the same kind of outside pressures and political interests that characterized the previous BRAC disasters. And, on a more parochial note, I am simply not going to vote to put my home state through this process again. We have proven over and over and over again that Hill Air Force Base and the other military installations based in my state are efficient, productive, and high quality. I am not going to vote to make them prove it again in a forum where the deck may already be stacked. So with all due respect to my colleague from Arizona, I cannot support this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the President and I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I congratulate Senators Gramm, Thurmond, and Byrd for their excellent statements on this matter, and for their leadership on this issue. This amendment strikes section 806 of the bill, a provision that would effectively eliminate the Department of Defense purchasing preference for products supplied by Federal Prison Industries (FPI), also known by its trade name of UNICOR. FPI is the federal corporation charged by Congress with the mission of training and employing federal prison inmates. For more than 60 years, this correctional program has provided inmates with the opportunity to learn practical work habits and skills. It has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in Congress and from each Republican and Democrat administration. An important part of this support has been the cooperative relationship between FPI and the Department of Defense--a relationship that has helped supply our armed forces in every war since 1934. FPI is an irreplaceable corrections program. FPI and its training programs at federal prisons across the nation have been credited with helping to lower recidivism and ensuring better job-related success for prisoners upon their release--a result that all of us applaud. Finally, FPI is an essential tool for ensuring a safe and secure correctional environment for staff, guards, and inmates in the federal prison system. Simply put, FPI keeps inmates productively occupied. And since the limited number of FPI jobs are coveted by inmates, getting and keeping these jobs are important incentives for good behavior by inmates. These are important considerations as the federal inmate population continues to rise. In the last ten years, the federal inmate population has more than doubled, from 51,153 in 1989 to 108,207 in 1998. As Philip Glover, President of the Council of Prison Locals, AFGE, testified before the Judiciary Committee yesterday, ``We cannot afford to simply warehouse inmates.'' Any corrections officer will tell you that the most dangerous inmate is the idle inmate. Idleness breeds frustration, and provides ample time to plan mischief--a volatile combination. Yet, despite the references to the costs imposed by FPI by my colleagues who oppose this amendment, I have heard no one suggest how the taxpayers will pay for the new prison programs and the additional prison guards that might be needed if FPI factories are forced to close. Section 806 of this bill, which our amendment strikes, puts the FPI program at substantial risk, and would certainly result in the shuttering of some FPI factories. Section 806 exempts from the FPI mandatory source requirement products priced below $2,500, products integral to or embedded in another product not made by FPI, or products which are components of a larger product used for military intelligence or weaponry. Together, these categories make up over 80 percent of DoD's purchases from FPI. FPI, in turn, depends on sales to the Pentagon for nearly 60 percent of its business. Some may reasonably ask, why should there be a government procurement preference for FPI goods? The answer is simply this: when FPI was established, in perhaps an unnecessary effort ensure the program did not affect private sector jobs, FPI was barred from selling its products in the commercial market. This is still the law. Thus, under current law, FPI may sell its products and services only to the federal government. Section 806 does not alter this sales restriction, and I do not understand the Senator from Michigan to be supporting such a change. To ensure that FPI has adequate work to keep inmates occupied, congress created a special FPI ``procurement preference,'' under which federal agencies are required to make their purchases from FPI instead of other vendors, as long as FPI can meet price, quality, and delivery requirements. Section 806 would remove this procurement preference, as it relates to the vast majority of sales to the Department of Defense. Without this preference, FPI could be crippled. Again, FPI is not permitted to compete for sales in the private market. It may only sell to the federal government, and then only if it can meet price, quality, and delivery requirements. And even then, waivers are available. Nothing short of the viability of Federal Prison Industries is at issue here. Under full competition for federal contracts, combined with market restrictions, FPI could not survive. My colleagues should remember that the primary mission of FPI is not profit. The primary mission of FPI is the safe and effective incarceration and rehabilitation of federal prisoners. Needless to say, FPI operates under constraints on its efficiency no private sector manufacturer must operate under. For example: Most private sector companies invest in the latest, most efficient technology and equipment to increase productivity and reduce labor costs. Because of its different mission, FPI frequently must make its manufacturing processes as labor-intensive as possible--in order to keep as many inmates as possible occupied. The secure correctional environment FPI in which FPI operates requires additional inefficiencies. Tools must be carefully checked in and out before and after each shift, and at every break. Inmate workers frequently must be searched before returning to their cells. And FPI factories must shut down whenever inmate unrest or institutional disturbances occur. No private sector business operates under these competitive disadvantages. The average federal inmate is 37 years old, has only an 8th grade education, and has never held a steady legal job. Some studies have estimated that the productivity of a worker with this profile is about one-quarter of that of the average worker in the private sector. This is another disadvantage that, by and large, private companies do not have to operate under. Finally, FPI is required to diversify its product line to minimize the impact on any one industry. Moreover, FPI can only enter new lines of business, or expand existing lines, after an exhaustive review has been undertaken to the impact on the private sector. Again, this is a restraint that most other businesses do not have imposed on them. All of us share the goal of ensuring that FPI does not adversely impact private business. FPI has made considerable efforts to minimize any adverse impact on the private sector. Over the past few years, it has transferred factory operations from multiple factory locations to new prisons, in order to create necessary inmate jobs without increasing FPI sales. FPI has also begun operations such as a mattress recycling factory, a laundry, a computer repair factory, and a mail bag repair factory, among others, to diversify its operations and minimize its impact on the private sector, while providing essential prison jobs. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that FPI actually creates a substantial number of private sector jobs. In FY 1998, thousands of vendors nationwide registered with FPI, and supplied nearly $419 million in purchases to FPI. And at the same time FPI trained and employed 20,200 federal inmates at no expense to the taxpayer in FY 1998, it also directly supported 4,600 jobs outside prison walls. Every dollar FPI receives in revenue is recycled into the private sector. Out of each dollar, 76 cents goes to the purchase of raw materials, equipment, services, and overhead, all supplied by the private sector; 18 cents goes to salaries of FPI staff; and 6 cents goes to inmate pay, which in turn if passed along to pay victim restitution, child support, alimony, and fines. Incidentally, FPI inmates are required to apply 50 percent of their earnings to these costs. Thus, while I have some sympathy for the intent of Senator Levin, who sponsored this provision in the bill, I must join Senator Gramm in offering this amendment to strike Section 806. I would like to remind my colleagues that the Senate has addressed this matter before. Two years ago, Senator Levin offered a similar amendment. Mr. President, 62 members of the Senate voted instead for an amendment offered by Senator Gramm and myself, requiring the Departments of Defense and Justice to undertake a joint study of the procurement and purchase processes governing FPI sales to the Department of Defense. Just last month, this study was delivered to Congress. Interestingly, the report does not support the action proposed by section 806. To the contrary, the Departments of Defense and Justice jointly concluded that the report's ``recommendations can be made within existing statutory authority, and will not require legislative action.'' In fact, neither of the Departments affected by section 806 support its inclusion in this bill. The Administration's official Statement of Administration policy is equally clear, stating that ``the Administration opposes Section 806.'' In summary, either we want Federal inmates to work, or we do not. I believe that we do want inmates to work, and therefore I must oppose section 806. I say to my colleagues, if you believe in maintaining good order and discipline in prisons, or if you believe in the rehabilitation of inmates when possible, you should support this amendment. I agree with those of my colleagues who believe that we must address the issues raised by prison industries nationwide. As we continue, appropriately, to incarcerate more serious criminals in both Federal and State prisons, productive work must be found for them. At the same time, we must ensure that jobs are not taken from law-abiding workers. Under the leadership of Senator Thurmond, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight yesterday held a hearing on this issue. Witnesses at that hearing urged Congress not to gut FPI without addressing the broader need for productive prison work. FPI is a proven correctional program. It enhances the security of federal prisons, helps ensure that federal inmates work, furthers inmate rehabilitation when possible, and provides restitution to victims. Section 806 would do immense harm to this highly successful program, and I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to strike it. I also ask unanimous consent a letter to me from the Office of the Attorney General be printed in the Record with the accompanying documents.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 64. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Bruce Artim, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday I met with former Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan, who now chairs the prestigious Public Health Policy Advisory Board (PHPAB). Dr. Sullivan presented to me their new report entitled ``Health and the American Child: A Focus on the Mortality Among Children.'' I was immediately struck by the fact that the findings of the PHPAB report underscore both the need for the legislation we are debating here today and the tremendous importance we must place on prevention efforts so that we can reduce unnecessary deaths of our Nation's youth. According to ``Health and the American Child,'' in the past two decades, two causes of child death have dramatically increased-- homicide and suicide, which account for 14% and 7% respectively of all deaths for children under age 19. In teenage black males, the levels are so striking that the report uses the term ``epidemic'' to describe an eight-fold increase in homicide rates among African American youth, now their number one cause of death. ``Homicide and suicide, the greatest new risks to children's health today, require both heightened preventive action as well as research into children's mental health and the social fabric in which they grow and develop.'' And that is precisely what we have been talking about during our debate on S. 254. The PHPAB report goes on to define the contributing risk factors associated with mortality in children. Homicide and suicide, as the major killers of our children, are most closely associated with firearms, drug and alcohol use, and motor vehicles. These significant increases in both morbidity and mortality among our youth must be addressed and demand aggressive preventive action on our part. I commend ``Health and the American Child'' to my colleagues and would be glad to make it available to any Senators who care to have the benefit of its considerable findings. ``Health and the American Child'' is really a call to action. It shows so dramatically why this bill we are debating today is important, and why we must set partisan rhetoric aside to get this legislation passed and enacted.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I likewise congratulate the ranking member. Mr. President, I ask 5 minutes be accorded to the subcommittee chairman of the Judiciary Committee who did more than any other single person to bring the good parts of this bill to the floor. He deserves a lot of recognition. This is his first term in the Senate. To have such a significant role on a bill of this magnitude I think is a great star in Senator Sessions' crown. I certainly recognize that and tell him what a pleasure it has been to work with him and with his staff in doing this. Let me just add one last thing. The Senator is right, the Senator from Vermont. We are here trying to save our children. We are here trying to make this a better world for them. We are here trying to make it clear to people in this country there is such a thing as discipline and we have to abide by certain rules in society. This bill will help a lot of young kids out there to realize there are rules and they are worthy rules; if they will abide by them, we will continue to have a great society for the next 200-plus years. To the extent this bill has come through, as extensive and good as it is, we owe a lot to the Senator from Georgia. I want to end this debate with a reminder. We have been on this bill for 2 weeks talking about violent juvenile crime, about the events in Littleton, about kids who use guns and about kids influenced by violence in the media. Unfortunately for all of us, that is true. But let us not lose sight of the millions of kids in this country, hundreds of thousands in Utah, who are really good young people. We give a lot of attention, and the bill focuses even more, on young people who get into trouble with the law. Let us not forget that about the kids who fly straight. As we wrap up consideration of this bill, let's thank the millions of young people across this land who work hard, study long hours, respect and love their parents and friends, and care for others around them. There are millions and millions of good kids in this country. What we are trying to make sure is the kids who were led astray, the kids who we think may not be so good, they are going to get a break--or at least they are going to understand what the law is with regard to violence. This bill, I think, will go a long way to solving these problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Let me make just a few more comments on this amendment. It has been suggested by the amendment's sponsors that the COPS program is responsible for the decline in crime in our country. Now, crime rates are still far too high, and are very high by historical standards. Be that as it may, we have seen some improvement in the past several years. But has the COPS Program been responsible for even the modest improvements we have seen? The evidence certainly suggests not. First of all, the program's grants have always been too spread out to have more than a marginal impact on crime rates. Second, law enforcement authorities themselves have been skeptical. For instance, in 1995, Chicago experienced sizable reductions in murder, robbery, and assault well before the COPS Program ever got off the ground. The Chicago Police Department cited a number of local initiatives that made a difference, including tracking every gun used by juvenile offenders, and using a towing ordinance in effect for narcotics and prostitution enforcement. Time and time again, the factor cited by the successful police executives traced the roots not to the Federal Government, but to local institutions, citizens, and police chiefs imposing accountability on their local police departments. Perhaps the best example of all is New York City, where a new police chief successfully attacked quality-of-life crimes and enforced accountability for the officers of the New York Police Department by setting standards of performance backed by a system of incentives and disincentives. New York City's murder rate fell so fast its decrease alone accounted for over 25 percent of the total nationwide drop in homicides in 1996. In 1997, the 21.7-percent drop in murders in New York City represented 14.8 percent of the total national decrease in murders. Yet, in New York City, which had 38,189 police officers in 1996, they added precisely 342 Clinton cops by 1995. Only 28 of the 342 new cops were actually new hires. I would like hearings on this matter. I would like another full authorization bill. I hope our colleagues will not vote to double the costs of this bill with this particular amendment, as well intended as it is. The distinguished Senator from Delaware knows that I have great feelings for him and for what he is trying to do, but I also believe we ought to do it in the right way.

Mr. HATCH. All the Senator wants to do is set up a Commission to review these matters. We have plenty of work in this bill to take care of it. Now look, the first amendment is not absolute. There are a lot of limitations on the first amendment recognized by the courts: obscenity, pornography, fighting words, time restrictions, such as nudity in television programming--that may be stopped, television programming that may be aired--indecent speech, exposure to children, and we could go on and on. It isn't like this is something unprecedented. I think we have to look at these matters and see what we can do to change the culture in this society, because that is what is wrong. It is a lot more important than guns or anything else. We have made it possible for these kids to see all kinds of filth and violence coming out of their ears. After a while, they get so that it becomes part of their lives. That is why this bill is so important. It is a lot more important than some of the assertions by some people on behalf of their amendments. But this is an amendment that I think we ought to vote for.

Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we now turn to the Harkin amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send a Helms amendment on safe schools and a Harkin-Lincoln amendment to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that we stack this amendment along with the Biden amendment to be voted upon at a time to be determined by the two leaders.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have debated this at length. The Lautenberg amendment creates more loopholes. It will be more expensive. It is going to increase taxes. And it will be more bureaucratic. I think it is going to push people into the streets to sell guns on the black market, which I think undermines everything he is trying to do. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to do that. We are hearing a lot in the media and on the floor of the Senate demonizing those who believe in the second amendment, those who strive to protect the rights of American citizens. The sincere steps taken today to try to find a middle ground are slapped aside by some. And, quite frankly, I find that to be discouraging and dispiriting. I still hold out hope that the Littleton shooting can bring out the best in all of us. We have come together on some issues and have before us a bill that responds to Littleton and does so in a way which respects the rights of law-abiding citizens. But to suggest, as one of our colleagues did yesterday, that in defending the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens the Senate is ``whistling past the graveyard of Littleton'' is contemptible, in my view. Given what is in this bill already, how can anyone in good conscience really say such a thing. If today's shooting in Atlanta isn't a wake-up call to those who want to play politics with this bill, I don't know what is. Americans still believe that gun ownership is a basic right of our people. If any community would change its views as a result of the Littleton shooting, it would be the residents of Colorado, where prior to the shooting 70 percent believed firearms ownership was a basic right. Has support for gun control increased in Colorado? No, just the opposite. A recent poll found that 75 percent of Coloradans believe gun ownership is a basic right. The people of Colorado and elsewhere recognize that this is a complex problem and that going on a gun control feeding frenzy is not the answer. Those who think otherwise should take a deep breath, take stock in what we have accomplished to date with this bill, and bring this bill to passage, because this bill can have a dramatic effect on helping us to resolve some of these problems with teen violence in our society today. We have had a vigorous and lengthy debate about gun shows and how best to limit criminal access to guns at these shows. There have been numerous unnecessary delays on this matter. Today I hope we can bring closure on this matter. This is an evolving process. After several days of debate last week, Republicans took a step to require background checks at gun shows without substantial cost and without overregulatory burdens. We all realize our duty to do what is best for our children and to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the second amendment. We all realize that the political benefits of scoring debating points lasts only for the hour, while the real benefits of protecting our children last for a lifetime. The evolutionary process continues. The supporters of the Lautenberg amendment have made changes to their proposal to bring it closer to our plan, and we are proposing the Smith-Jeffords amendment to deal with the pawnshop exemption and to clarify the special licensee provision. Our plan, however, does not impose substantial disincentives to obey the law. My sense and hope is that our efforts will continue to evolve and that we will be able to find common ground, a common ground that protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to legally use guns but punishes criminals who illegally use guns. There is one firearm-related provision on which I hope we can reach bipartisan agreement. That is the treatment of pawnshops that have traditionally been exempt from the requirement to conduct background checks when they simply return a firearm to its owner. Contrary to what the distinguished Senator from Nebraska said, if a stolen gun is pawned, it will be discovered when the gun comes into the pawn shop. State law requires pawn shops to notify state or local law enforcement agencies concerning the gun. These state and local agencies then check to determine if the gun is stolen. If the gun is stolen, the police can investigate and, if necessary, arrest the pawning customer. This all happens before the gun is returned to the customer and thus, before a Federal background check would be required. The pawn shops protested the 1993 Brady law that required them to do a federal background check in addition to the state check they were already doing. Further, they complained about the 3-day waiting period. If a pawn shop had to wait 3 days under the orginal Brady law to conduct a federal background check, it could not return the gun to the customer when the customer repaid the loan. That is why Congress amended the Brady law in 1994 to exempt pawn shops from the requirement to do a federal background check. The Craig amendment which we passed last Wednesday simply restored the exemption for pawnshops that had been part of the Brady law for 4 years and had been approved by some notable people, even some here on this floor. Thus, the Craig amendment did not effect a major change in law, but a change back to how the Brady law read from 1994 to November 1998 when the exemption lapsed as the instant check system became effective. As I have stated repeatedly, it is my goal to find common ground on these issues. Wherever possible, I want to do what is best for our children and for the public, which is consistent with our oath as Senators to uphold the Constitution. Frankly, I viewed the pawn shop provision as a technical matter, one which should not be politicized. I am glad that Senators Smith and Jeffords have made a bipartisan proposal to resolve this matter so that both sides can get together. With respect to special licensees, last Wednesday the Senate passed the Craig amendment which provided that persons who wished to engage in the business of selling firearms but just at guns shows must obtain a special Federal license to do so. Subsequently, however, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complained that the Craig amendment was not clear enough in requiring special licensees to conduct background checks. We have looked at the language and think it is clear. Nonetheless, to address the concerns of our colleagues, I offered a simple one-page amendment last Friday which made it absolutely clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that special licensees were subject to the background check provisions of the Gun Control Act. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected this clarification. Instead of dealing with their concern, they wanted to debate it, and, boy, have they debated it. Today the Smith-Jeffords amendment contains the clarification I offered last Friday with a bit more explanation. It states: Except as to the State and local planning and zoning requirements for a licensed premises as provided in subparagraph (D), a special licensee shall be subject to all of the provisions of this chapter applicable to dealers, including, but not limited to, the performance of an instant background check. The key language of the amendment states: A special licensee shall [not might, but shall] be subject to all [not some, but all] of the provisions of this chapter applicable to dealers, including but not limited to, the performance of an instant background check. This could not be any clearer. Special licensees must perform a background check before selling a firearm at a gun show. So let's get rid of the talk about loopholes. The Smith-Jeffords amendment deals in a bipartisan fashion with the pawn shop exemption and with the clarification of the requirement for special licensees to perform background checks. There has been a lot of talk about loopholes, and the Smith-Jeffords amendment should lay most of that talk to rest. But the biggest loophole for criminals is the lack of enforcement of criminal laws that currently exist by our Attorney General and this administration. If we in Congress pass a law prohibiting a criminal transaction, it is the duty of the Attorney General to enforce it. But she has not. Our bill includes the CUFF program to fund more prosecutions of gun crimes and orders the Attorney General to report on her progress in prosecuting gun crimes. By enforcing criminal statutes, we can protect our children and our schools. If a criminal knows that the statutes we pass will not be enforced, however, we expose our children to more crime. Let me make a point with these charts. Is this a record to be proud of in this administration? We are quoting the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys for these figures. Prosecutions under the Brady Act background checks: In 1996, zero. They claim that the Brady Act stopped 200-some-odd-thousand felons from getting guns. There was not one prosecution in 1996, not one prosecution in 1997, and just one prosecution in 1998. If there is a loophole, it is in the failure of the Attorney General and the Justice Department to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Yet, you hear this hue and cry for more gun control laws. But this is only for political purposes because they know that their own Attorney General will not enforce these laws.

Mr. HATCH. Is there anybody on their side who cares to speak at this time, or should I?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, may I inquire, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the Smith amendment be modified.